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.
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