that's... exactly the point, but with the reverse conclusion. You can always paint a narrative about how this situation is different than others. You can justify anything you want by just working backwards in this way. So instead, we have values and principles, and those are the things that should be under debate.
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the only thing that matters at all is power. Sadly, the USA is responsible for establishing this paradigm, although pointing this out is taboo whataboutism. Now, we're returning to a world as it's always been: apes compelling other apes with their sticks.
I just don't think human psychology works this way. Your attitude is akin to a parent's with a child, "your actions have consequences, so do better". But Russia's parent in this analogy is Putin, and he will use such things to his advantage. Your approach might feel just, but the message will be completely lost.
You will note how many Western governments over the past few days have been saying explicitly: "These sanctions are not meant at the Russian people, we see that they did not want this war". It doesn't seem like this is even true from polling, but it's calculated messaging, and it's important.
You are using an analogy to a totally different domain (parent / child) where the rules of the game is totally different (in parent / child relationship, everything is controlled and non-escalatory: it's about education and the assumption is that there is no violence). In this frame of reference you might win the argument.
But my argument is different. If because of sanctions Russians people start to think a little bit and question their government, that will be a start. That may not happen to be honest because as I said, the government of a country is a reflexion of the values of that country. And I am not sure for Russia.
I have family in Moldova and in far-east Russia. I was talking to a cousin in the far-east and I can't even believe the discussion we had few weeks ago.
You and others use "whataboutism" like it's some sort of checkmate. The point is, many Americans are very eager to police everyone based on their "principles", everyone else except themselves and their allies that is.
The topic of discussion is not whether or not the Russian invasion of Ukraine is bad. If it was, your argument would be applicable.
This topic is analogous to "selective enforcement" from police. If a policeman typically jails blacks but gives whites a warning for the same crime, this is bad, and should be acknowledged as such. Same here.
You're comparing a civil-rights violation to a business inconvenience. Namecheap and others like them owe nobody anything except by contract, and they're going to refund (to the extent possible) those they won't do business with anymore.
Pointing out hypocrisy is a cheap shot, though, because everyone's a hypocrite to one degree or another. As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument. It's seen by many as a vain attempt to show how smart you are and is generally just a distraction, as opposed to a participation in a substantive discussion of the issue at hand.
Maybe that's how you feel, but not me. I try to live in a principled way, and I think many other people do as well. So I support calling out hypocrisy because I think it makes the world a better place (I would like my own views also challenged on these grounds). In this case, the hypocritical action is needlessly divisive because it paints Russians as "the other", and I don't think this type of thinking helps the world in the long-term.
Sure, that must be it. Russia has a perfect right to encroach on whatever territories border their nation because they can't handle having sovereign nations at their borders. And of course after that they get to do it again.
Call me what you wish, but it's not true. If you're done then log off and stop spamming your replies to every single comment in this thread, and leave some space for any other opinion. You're just ranting
I won't be told to shut up by you or anybody else for that matter, nine years on HN and this is what brings you out to comment with a bunch of disinformation? Pretty clear which side you are on.
That's not the case. But anyway, after a night to clear my head I realize this is an emotional time for everyone, and I'm sorry for stirring you up. I was reacting to my own things. I definitely don't support this war, nor any further bloodshed. I wish for peace, and peace to you as well. Have a good day
I'm happy calling initiating a completely preventable conflict that nobody wanted that has resulted in the deaths of 137, 17 of whom are Ukrainian civilians, and 316 wounded evil. There's no meaningful moral difference between what Putin did and outright murdering 17 people. He knew innocent Ukrainians (and, for that matter, innocent Russians) would die and didn't care.
Well that’s not how anything works. E.g. how many babies might be saved by Russian economic development from having access to the sea through Ukraine? At this scale the moral calculus isn’t easy.
War has led to plenty of development through history, and development saves babies. Do you think Italy or Germany would have been better off as bickering principalities, without Giribaldi or Bismarck? Do you think China would have been better off as a bunch of warring states?
I agree on Iran but this is different. We could have sold steel and fuel to the Germans and Japanese in WW2, but we didn’t because they were engaged in something evil.
The Germans were engaged in the holocaust, which was evil. The Russians are invading a sovereign country to replace the government, which the US has done twice in as many decades.
I'm not "enlightened", and you can draw your own conclusions. But they don't have to annex Ukraine, they can just mess it up and cripple its military. At the least, Putin's stated aim is "demilitarization" of Ukraine.
As for the comparison with the Baltic states, I would note that this entire situation evolved over decades. Perhaps Russia would have more strongly opposed NATO membership for the Baltics had it been in a more powerful position when that was happening. Perhaps they thought that NATO-expansion would stop there.
A lot has happened in the past 3 decades and some patterns are much more clear now than they were back then. One that Putin has repeatedly pointed to is that the USA is continuously supporting overthrow of governments that it doesn't like, even in the case of democratically-elected Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Maybe Putin is paranoid to think the same can happen in Russia, maybe not. But I think in his view, maintaining the nuclear deterrent with the West is an existential concern, like it had been for the USSR. Having NATO missiles and bases in Ukraine is clearly a step in the wrong direction for that concern.
I'm not saying that this justifies war or that Putin is right. I just think that Putin perceives himself as a cornered rat, and that from this perspective his actions make a lot more sense than just seeing him as deranged or a power-hungry demagogue. This perspective is laid out more fully in this talk by John Mearsheimer if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=120s
This is obviously a very sensitive topic at this time, and I hesitate even to post this comment. But I think everyone should be free to draw their own conclusions.
that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But it's not fact, and none of us are in Putin's head and know what he thinks. This is simply one perspective
No, this isn't a trial. It's OK to raise ideas up for others' consideration. The absence of obvious evidence doesn't mean the thing itself isn't happening.
There is also a big difference between one person's voice on a platform, and a decision-maker of the platform who is creating policy/process for filtering those voices.
It's not my job to disprove other's statement. It's their job to prove their statements when they make assertions. This is common argument religious zealots make. You can't disprove god, therefore god exists. It's silly at best.
I have yet to see any proof or evidence that 'elites' are engaged in such activities.
Bitching about 'the elites' is garbage. It is a contentless description unless you identify who you're bitching about, primarily used as a way to get others to agree with you by substituting their own conception of 'elitists'.
If you blame 'elites' with no further clarification for something, I'm going to assume you're pushing a dishonest agenda. If you were being honest, you'd identify your scary shadowy actors.
One thing to note is: I can't find any mention of returns/refunds on the wurkkos website, while Amazon has their standard (very liberal) return policy.
From the manufacturer's standpoint, they pay 15% referal fee to Amazon for getting them the sale. They also have a 5% coupon. Taking both of those things into account, their revenue on the sale is ~$64 compared to the ~$54 on their site. But I'd wager they're not getting very many sales on their website.
Efficiency of markets is like the Law of Large Numbers. But it's possible to get n consecutive coin flips that come up heads.