I recently learned that voting on lemmy is not anonymous. Anyone can get information about who has upvoted and downvoted a post or comment.
In combination with your IP, this is a massive privacy (maybe even physical security) risk. Also, people can target you for your votes.
Sadly, this is something where I would prefer Reddit over Lemmy. Big tech scrapes data from both places anyways, at least Reddit is safe.
dude is just bent out of shape because they got called out for disagreeing Russia should go home and leave Ukraine alone.
https://lemmy.world/comment/18706617
I mean it is kind of a dick move to spy on downvotes and then demand that someone respond to you. The dude is wrong as hell, but I do agree with the overall principle that not every vote needs to be subject to someone getting interrogated as to why they voted that way.
Their shock at finding out that it works that way is, of course, why the currently Lemmy UI is badly designed because it creates the illusion for people that their votes are private. They definitely should not do that.
It’s not something I usually do, but I’m tired of not calling out people on shitty opinions in regards to fascism. especially when it comes to a simple perspective of “this bad thing is bad”.
it’s like someone downvoting because a comment said “fuck cancer”. like…why? my mind can’t even fathom why anyone would dislike that kind of message unless they themselves are cancer or advocate for the advancement of cancer.
typically I don’t give a shit about downvotes, but it just really rubbed me the wrong way.
Yeah, I get it. You’re not wrong.
People are free to their opinions. Not everyone will fit into your concept of ethics. If you are calling out someone for their non-conventional opinion, you are against free speech.
I feel like you misunderstand what free speech is.
Calling someone out for any opinion is part of free speech.
Makes sense
To elaborate, the ability to call someone out is literally “free speech”. The backlash you may get for said call out, in speech form, is also part of free speech.
If the government locks you up for what you said, that is not free speech.
Arguably it’s also not free speech if a community allows targeted harassment campaigns but that certainly doesn’t apply to random single comments and moderators exist to hopefully prevent or minimize that.
Nope, that’s not what that means. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences of your speech and it doesn’t mean guaranteed anonymous speech. And as far as the constitution is concerned, the right to freedom of speech only means the government can’t stop you from expressing your opinion.
So you have the right to say what you want without government interference, but other people can tell you that what you said is shitty, your employer can fire you because you opinion isn’t consistent with their values, the forum/venue where you expressed your opinion can ban you, etc.
Free speech just means the government isn’t allowed to punish you for only saying things (and even that had a whole constellation of big fuckin asterisks on it). Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
I read the thread and it was definitely worth calling him out this time.
Exactly my point. It is a form of witch-hunt. People are too focused on my views on the Russia-Ukraine than the actual topic.
deleted by creator
I am not bent out of shape. I said what I said and I stand by it. I am surprised about the public nature of my votes.
Removed by mod
One comment and five rubles in your pocket, well done Yuri.
Removed by mod
That’s rich coming from an actual Putin nazi, Bumhole.
Removed by mod
You’re not accurately representing what they said.
…is on par with telling people to “get a higher-paying job” to fix their finances or “just get friends” to solve loneliness. I don’t downvote a comment like this because it wouldn’t solve the issue, but because the proposed “solution” is completely out of touch with reality.
Good rule of thumb for online discussion: if someone offers a simple solution to a complex problem, they probably don’t know what they’re talking about.
I mean…I am “they”.
honestly I’m at a loss of even how to respond to your critique. you’re comparing first world problems and the primary request of the Ukrainian government like it’s apples to apples.
I think if either of us is underestimating the complexity of the situation, it’s you.
many of the problems that are plaguing Ukraine right now is Russia. many of the problems plaguing Russia right now is their illegal occupation of Ukraine. the simplest solution right now is for Russia to leave Ukraine. after that, discussions of reciprocity can be held. I use that term loosely here though because Russia is clearly the one at fault and Ukraine has been acting in self-defense, as such Ukraine shouldn’t be required to repay anything to Russia.
also, if you’re coming to Lemmy to have a deep political discussion on the finer points of political discourse (especially on the topic of Russia), you might not be that intelligent. maybe read a book on the subject and find a discussion group at a local library if you want to engage with an intellectual.
remember, these are comments not thesis statements.
Ok at the risk of being downvoted to oblivion, why do you think Russia invaded Ukraine?
Mind you, I still think Russia did the wrong thing but there is nuance.
There is no nuance. Russia amassed an invasion force at the Ukrainian border for a week before entering their sovereign territory.
Russia postured at the border and had been threatening to advance for months before that even.
Russia was supporting Russian separatists and funding domestic terrorists within Ukraine before the invasion.
the only reason why this happened is because the Ukrainian public rebelled against the Russian fed corruption and held an actual legitimate election and removed the installed puppets.
if there is any nuance here, it’s in the multiple ways that Russia had attempted to circumvent the will of the Ukrainian people.
To take it over. You know, like they have done with number of countries number of times before?
Removed by mod
“You might not be that intelligent” isn’t the counter argument you might think it is.
You misrepresented what OP said. Plain and simple. That’s what I’m calling you out on.
Thank you for saying it. I thought I was going mad.
No, it’s on par with telling someone “Well, you shouldn’t keep driving drunk then” or “You should 100% stop contacting her and move on if she keeps instantly blocking you on every new platform you try on.” Certain actions really are under voluntary control. We’re not telling Russia they really need to shape up that GDP if they want the world to take them seriously. We’re asking them to stop deciding to kill innocent people. Seems legit. The obstacle is that they really want to, and they’re reluctant to stop.
(The analogy is flawed because there’s no real equivalency between driving drunk and maybe rolling the dice on killing one family, and yourself, versus doing it to members of a million families. But the simplicity of the solution is the same.)
There’s no real cost to stopping drunk driving. Putin, on the other hand, has gone all in on the war in Ukraine. “Just pull your troops from Ukraine” is about as realistic as “just shoot yourself,” because from his perspective, the outcome is basically the same in both scenarios.
Sure, it would be nice if Russia simply left Ukraine, but put yourself in Putin’s position - it’s a complete non-solution. You don’t fold after going all in. It’s an incredibly naive thing to say, and it ignores the reality and complexity of the situation entirely. It’s a thought-terminating cliché - a feel-good slogan people toss around to avoid critical thinking, while fishing for upvotes from like-minded people.
That’s literally no one’s problem but Putin’s. He has committed crimes. He should accept the personal reprecussions. You’re basically making the “affluenza” argument for someone who has been committing war crimes and murdering civilians because they dared to want to have a representative government.
I’m not defending Putin’s actions - I’m assessing the realistic options given the current situation. There’s a difference between what should happen in a moral sense and what is actually likely to happen in the real world.
Saying “he should accept the consequences” is easy - but how exactly do you propose making that happen? Wishing for an outcome is not the same as having a way to it. If you think there’s a viable way to get Putin to take personal responsibility or withdraw and survive it personally, I’m genuinely interested in hearing what you think that looks like in practice.
Wow, I’m dumbfounded by this logic.
Let’s say you and I live next door to each other. One day, my family and I break into your house and move in. You tell us to leave, but we punch you in the face. You try fighting back, but we don’t leave, and days and weeks go by. I’ve moved some of my furniture into your house. How would you feel if people started saying that the problem is now too complex. I’ve obviously invested too much in living in your house for me to just pack up and go home. The solution is going to have to be more nuanced than that.
This seems to be the logic you’re defending.
Nothing I’ve said is in any way defending the invasion.
It’s the logic of what I replied to that doesn’t make sense to me.
Your cartoon example isn’t even remotely equivalent to the reality Putin is in. He went in expecting to take Kyiv in a week with minimal resistance and no serious Western response. Even in his worst-case planning, he didn’t prepare for what he’s in now. The point where he could have cut his losses passed long ago - he’s gone all in, and now the West is calling his bluff.
Put yourself in his position and look at the “solution” being offered: withdraw all troops, surrender the little territory you’ve gained, and face the full weight of everything you’ve gambled and lost. The alternative? Keep throwing whatever you have left at the problem and hope for a miracle.
Given he’s likely only got another decade or so left to live, there’s no personal incentive to fold now. He has nothing more to lose - he’s not just going to walk away.
The salient part of my analogy is that his “investment” is in being completely in the wrong by every measure. No one should support him continuing on the path he’s been on.
This is exactly the kind of logic someone would use to justify either of the examples I brought up. Exactly.
The fact that he really doesn’t want to stop killing innocent people, and so he would have to pay the “cost” of doing something he doesn’t want to do, isn’t a justification. I would actually really like for him to be arrested on that ICC warrant and try to explain this exactly logic at the Hague. I think it would be great. I would support him using that defense, I think it would be wonderful to see. People could decide whether to accept the logic, and then whether to hang him or not depending on whether they bought into it as a good reason for continuing to kill innocent people on an industrial scale.
Explanation is not excuse. This has absolutely nothing to do with justifying anything they’ve done.
So what they’ve done in Ukraine is completely unjustified? In your opinion?
In my opinion? Well obviously yeah. That just doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Russia has attacked my country in the past as well, and I have zero sympathy for their cause. But that doesn’t stop me from imagining the situation from their perspective. “Just ending the invasion” isn’t a survivable option if you’re Putin. No matter how unjust it’s been, the only imaginable way out is to somehow let him “save face" what ever that means in this situation.
It is literally a cliche of geopolitics for the mighty empire to continue the senseless and horrific war against some small country that’s effectively defending itself, year after year, because of this logic. But then in the end to reluctantly agree to the “unimaginable” way out (saving face with some kind of explanation that literally no one believes), because at the end of the day, the simple physics of the situation will allow nothing else.
I more or less agree with you about Putin’s logic and mindset actually. My overall point is there is more than one country and leader in the world that can be stubborn. The defenders are often more stubborn, at the end of the day, it turns out (to the shock and confusion of the attackers who thought they had a monopoly.)
There isn’t one for Russia to go home neither.
You are taking a fucking piss.
Ok I have ro ask, have you studied philosophy or language? Your comments are so well formed with proper terminology.
Thank you!
No, I haven’t - I’m a plumber by training. I credit my autism for my precision of speech, and as for my philosophy and the vocabulary around it, I’d say that’s simply the result of a few decades of debating these topics online, combined with thousands of hours of podcasts and YouTube videos covering these topics.
It’s rare that I say anything completely original. If something I say comes across as well-crafted, it’s probably because I’ve said the exact same thing a dozen times before.
Autism is a superpower if used correctly.
You are my second favourite plumber, after Mario.
Do you want a little bit of vaseline with that?
This is just bait lol
Get a room you two
New quote added to my journal