|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Norway28786 Posts
On June 05 2023 05:08 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 04:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
you'd point towards some other group of russian soldiers who were watching this punishment be enacted upon this first group, where it's fair to say 'that's bound to influence their ability to freely choose'. My understanding was that Magic Powers meant exactly this, but I might be wrong, of course. If you're an unwilling conscript and you're told to shoot at Ukranians, and you know that if you refuse there's a high chance you'd be beaten senseless with possible brain trauma or worse, and let's say you have a wife and kids to come back to... it's a very, very tough choice, and none of us here can say what we'd choose in this situation. As it's super easy to say "I'd never do that, so they had a choice" when we've never been even remotely close to such situations.
Yeah, very possible that is what he meant, but it's not what his actual words actually meant. Easier to just go 'what I meant was x' than 'you're misunderstanding' and 'reflect upon your words'. I think the point that not obeying will result in harsh punishment and thus your ability to freely choose gets compromised is a coherent and good point, but if the example you use to back that up is the group experiencing harsh punishment for choosing not to obey then you're also very much arguing in favor of 'they have a choice'.
|
Norway28786 Posts
On June 05 2023 05:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 04:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:On June 05 2023 04:46 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm not going to discuss this. Getting beaten silly by a commanding officer is not a choice. You're not being reasonable, and you need to reflect on your words. I mean I'm not fully agreeing with Kwark in the broader sense here but on this particular part of the discussion he's clearly right. Those Russians would be the kind of Russian soldiers Kwark can think more positively of, because they actually refused to follow orders. If you wanted an example that'd back up your point, you'd point towards some other group of russian soldiers who were watching this punishment be enacted upon this first group, where it's fair to say 'that's bound to influence their ability to freely choose', not the first group which is being beaten up for utilizing that ability. Eh, they made the choice to run away presumably because they thought the immediate future was going to involve fighting an assault by armed Ukrainian soldiers rather than raping a bunch of unarmed Ukrainian women. Had their orders involved raping a bunch of unarmed Ukrainian women they likely wouldn't have disobeyed orders, it's not a coincidence that the orders they disobeyed were dangerous. Let's not confuse cowardice with nobility. Even in the case of the second group of soldiers here though, they're seeing that the punishment is just a beating. Nobody likes a beating but I'm going to go ahead and assert that no amount of beatings would be able to compel me to kill an innocent child. Kill myself, sure, there's an amount of beatings that would do that. But not kill a child. Now it's possible that I'm some kind of moral superman whose philosophy is above the minds of Magic Powers but I somewhat doubt that. Let's for a moment put ourselves in the place of the second group watching the first group get punished. You know that in a few minutes you'll be ordered to kill a child and that you can expect the same punishment if you disobey. The commanding officer starts with some mean names, works his way up to full on verbal abuse, then a wedgie or a noogie, then light slaps, then maybe some dead arms, then some punches to the body, then some punches to the face, and so forth. Stopping short of death but including some broken face bones etc. I wonder at what point Magic Powers would say "yeah, I really don't have a choice here, guess I'll kill that child". We know that he believes that there is full compulsion at some point on that spectrum, that he would definitely kill the child and feel no guilt over it because he didn't have a choice, but where exactly. Would it take more than calling him names? How many noogies would he endure? Once we know where that point is we can safely say that at every moment below that he did have a choice. That if it took a humiliating spanking to compel him then before that point he was making an active choice, he chose to endure the name calling and the verbal abuse rather than kill a child. Would he judge someone else who was prepared to kill the child rather than be called a buttface?
It's still preferable, no? Also hard for me to know what motivated them to act in the manner they did. I actually did weigh my words and used 'can', not 'will'! 
That said I agree that a 'look, these guys were tortured until they died and the same thing happened to their family members at home' would be the kind of option that truly takes away your choice, whereas a savage beating merely compromises it and there are still things I wouldn't do if that is my punishment.
|
On June 05 2023 05:08 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 04:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
you'd point towards some other group of russian soldiers who were watching this punishment be enacted upon this first group, where it's fair to say 'that's bound to influence their ability to freely choose'. My understanding was that Magic Powers meant exactly this, but I might be wrong, of course. If you're an unwilling conscript and you're told to shoot at Ukranians, and you know that if you refuse there's a high chance you'd be beaten senseless with possible brain trauma or worse, and let's say you have a wife and kids to come back to... it's a very, very tough choice, and none of us here can say what we'd choose in this situation. As it's super easy to say "I'd never do that, so they had a choice" when we've never been even remotely close to such situations.
Exactly. I can absolutely see a line that would lead to me being at the front lines with a gun in a similar situation.
Start as a 20-year old in some random Russian village. Maybe you work some boring job or whatever.
Then the war starts. But it is far away, so you don't immediately leave the country. Wouldn't be easy anyways, as you only speak Russian and don't really have a lot of money.
The war goes on, and you get bombarded with propaganda. You don't really believe it, but you also don't really know what is going on.
Suddenly you get a draft letter. Maybe you try to flee, but you don't manage to, or you don't, because once again, you don't really have any way to get out anyways.
Now you get drafted. Get a gun and shipped to Ukraine. Your phone gets taken, too. So from now on, you basically have no clue what is going on. Sure, you could have fought back, but that would have been desertion and potentially got you shot. Probably it's not that bad there?
Then you see a bunch of people who didn't do what they were told get beaten nearly to death. Then you get told to go somewhere and hold a gun. All pretty abstract decisions up to this point, and absolutely none involving war crimes or whatever.
And now you are holding a gun on the front lines. You may not really be interested in the whole thing, but you don't really know anything about what is going on, and those guys are shooting at you.
|
And nobody is a "moral superman" just because they say or think they would not do it.
Words - even words said in good faith - are super cheap and people often tend to change their views when their life is in actual danger.
I can believe and say many things I'd never do - but if someone says in real life "do it or I'll kill you", I have no idea what I'd do. I'd like to believe I'd resist doing something horrible even when facing death, and maybe I am a moral superman.
But it's impossible to say before you're actually in this situation.
|
|
|
On June 05 2023 04:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 04:46 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm not going to discuss this. Getting beaten silly by a commanding officer is not a choice. You're not being reasonable, and you need to reflect on your words. I mean I'm not fully agreeing with Kwark in the broader sense here but on this particular part of the discussion he's clearly right. Those Russians would be the kind of Russian soldiers Kwark can think more positively of, because they actually refused to follow orders. If you wanted an example that'd back up your point, you'd point towards some other group of russian soldiers who were watching this punishment be enacted upon this first group, where it's fair to say 'that's bound to influence their ability to freely choose', not the first group which is being beaten up for utilizing that ability.
I don't know what is so unclear. Fact: Russian soldiers get severely beaten up for disobeying orders. Conclusion: Russian soldiers do not have a choice.
|
United States43934 Posts
On June 05 2023 05:28 ZeroByte13 wrote:
And nobody is a "moral superman" just because they say or think they would not do it.
Words - even words said in good faith - are super cheap and people often tend to change their views when their life is in actual danger.
I can believe and say many things I'd never do - but if someone says in real life "do it or I'll kill you", I have no idea what I'd do. I'd like to believe I'd resist doing something horrible even when facing death, and maybe I am a moral superman.
But it's impossible to say before you're actually in this situation.
Let's say that the commander threatened to call one of his soldiers a buttface unless he killed a child and the soldier didn't want to be called a buttface and so he killed the child. In that hypothetical did the soldier have a choice or was he compelled?
Let's say that there are two Russian soldiers, both ordered to a kill a child.
The first one refuses and is shot. The second one kills the child and lives.
Did neither Russian soldier have a choice, did both Russian soldiers have a choice, or did only one of them have a choice?
|
I think the video was posted before, and since no blood or gore is shown I'll assume it's safe to be posted again. I'll put it in spoilers.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/zvjx1j/commander_beats_russian_mobilized_soldiers_for/
KwarK talks a strong game, but I don't believe a word of it. If he faces this type of punishment for his actions, he will quickly stop believing that he has a choice.
|
United States43934 Posts
On June 05 2023 05:50 Magic Powers wrote:I think the video was posted before, and since no blood or gore is shown I'll assume it's safe to be posted again. I'll put it in spoilers. + Show Spoiler +https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/zvjx1j/commander_beats_russian_mobilized_soldiers_for/ KwarK talks a strong game, but I don't believe a word of it. If he faces this type of punishment for his actions, he will quickly stop believing that he has a choice.
They literally chose to endure that when faced with a choice between that or facing an armed Ukrainian assault. That was literally their choice. They're getting punished because their commander didn't like their choice. This is a photo of a golden retriever as proof that dogs don't exist again.
People who don't have a choice are tautologically incapable of being punished for disobeying orders.
|
On June 05 2023 05:08 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 04:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
you'd point towards some other group of russian soldiers who were watching this punishment be enacted upon this first group, where it's fair to say 'that's bound to influence their ability to freely choose'. My understanding was that Magic Powers meant exactly this, but I might be wrong, of course. If you're an unwilling conscript and you're told to shoot at Ukranians, and you know that if you refuse there's a high chance you'd be beaten senseless with possible brain trauma or worse, and let's say you have a wife and kids to come back to... it's a very, very tough choice, and none of us here can say what we'd choose in this situation. As it's super easy to say "I'd never do that, so they had a choice" when we've never been even remotely close to such situations. Its a tough choice and we might made the same choice, but that doesn't mean that we can't hold them accountable for that choice. In the same way others would judge us for our choice.
Part of life is living with the choices you made. Those soldiers in Ukraine, regardless of what they themselves did or not made a whole series of choices that got them there and they will have to live with that. Including the judgement of others for the actions of their comrades by association of being there with them.
|
KwarK, you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the word "choice". This is not a me-problem, but a you-problem. You don't understand what a choice is or isn't.
No, these soldiers do not have a choice. They do not choose to get beaten. Someone else has chosen that for them. Therefore any action they take that compels them to not get beaten is also not a choice. It's a catch-22. Do you understand what a catch-22 is or do I need to explain that concept to you like I would have to explain it to a little child?
|
On June 05 2023 06:05 Magic Powers wrote:
KwarK, you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the word "choice". This is not a me-problem, but a you-problem. You don't understand what a choice is or isn't.
No, these soldiers do not have a choice. They do not choose to get beaten. Someone else has chosen that for them. Therefore any action they take that compels them to not get beaten is also not a choice. It's a catch-22. Do you understand what a catch-22 is or do I need to explain that concept to you like I would have to explain it to a little child? They had a choice to flee the country, they had a choice to dodge the draft, the had a choice for desertion, they potentially had a choice to surrender to Ukraine.
|
On June 05 2023 04:49 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 02:42 Artesimo wrote:On June 05 2023 02:04 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2023 23:54 Artesimo wrote:On June 04 2023 23:43 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2023 18:20 Artesimo wrote:
This is part of the reason why I have been so adamant at arguing against dehumanising russian soldiers “Won’t anyone think of the good concentration camp guards. What did they do to deserve our hate?” I knew I could trust you to come in with some hyperbolic statement that completely mischaracterises what is being said / is happening. Defending the Russian people is one thing, defending the Russian soldiers who are fighting for the right to genocide the Ukrainians is another. These people are at worst Einsatzgruppen and at best the soldiers who kill the people who fight the Einsatzgruppen. Well if you followed the conversation in any capacity, you would know that my dislike for it here was because its needless hostility that might push someone over the edge - not about protecting these soldiers. And if you had made the effort to go back to when I first advocated that point, it was because I disagree with that stuff fundamentally and think it leads down a dangerous path for yourself. It is motivated by protecting our "western" way of life, our values, and our future. Not the russian soldier who's crimes are not any less condemned by it. Not debasing yourself takes away nothing from their actions. I don't just believe in basic human rights when they suit me. And I know I really gonna regret engaging on this, but the comparison of the russian war against ukraine to what the war of the nazis is just plain false. There is overlap in what is happening, but ultimately the russian war in ukraine seems to be to dissolve the state of ukraine and its identity - something which fits the legal definition of genocide. The goal is not to kill off all ukrainians. The war the nazis fought sought to eliminate what they deemed lesser races, so genocide in the sense that most people will use it: The murder of groups of people as a core goal. That is not a defence of either of those. Both can be described as genocidal, but there is still a difference between them. Both are unacceptable. I appreciate the irony of you reaching for some nazi comparisons when trying to defend something that was at the very core of their ideology and is generally not accepted within our values. But it is at the core of their ideology. It is a cultural chauvinism instead of an ethnic one, but it's much closer than you realise. Perhaps not in how the Nazis treated the Jews, but how they treated the Poles. They considered some ethnic Poles as suitable for germanisation. They also kidnapped Polish children. Sounds familiar? According to the Kremlin, the Ukrainians are brainwashed Russians. The Ukrainian identity is considered a disease that needs to be cured. As per the words of Vladimir Solvyov, eradicating people identifying as Ukrainian in Ukraine is akin to deworming a cat. The two articles below outlined what Russia was planning to do with Ukrainians: https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https:/ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.htmlhttps://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.htmlAccording to the Kremlin, Ukrainians can be categorised into three groups: (1) those willing to be russified, (2) those who can be forcefully russified through repressions, and (3) those vehemently opposed to being russified. The latter are to be exterminated. The Ukrainian identity is considered as a new, "amorphous form of Nazism" that is to be eradicated. How many Ukrainians need to be exterminated? That depends whom you ask. According to Alexei Zhuravlyov, an MP frequently featuring in Russian political talk shows, around 5% of the population are "incurable", roughly 2 million people. The propagandist Margarita Simonyan expressed her shock when she realised that a significant portion of Ukrainians are "infected with Nazism". A DNR leader, Pavel Gubarev said that as many as 5 million, and perhaps even all Ukrainians may have to be killed. They're also talking about imposing decades of terror to get rid of the Ukrainian identity. Myself, I would estimate the third category at some 60-80% of the Ukrainian population at least. Pro-war Russians seem comfortable with killing tens of millions of people if necessary.
In regards to children, same difference applies. Just like the nazis selected who needs to be exterminated and who not based on race and not ideology, they chose which children would be deported for adoption and which would be used for medical experiments and forced labour (the vast vast majority) based on race rooted in their theory on phrenology. It was always about race and only race. It was not a question of national identity. It was not intended to incorporate citizens of the occupied countries into german society, but to preserve sufficiently aryan life. The idea was that these kids were not subhuman because they had sufficient aryan blood. The vast majority of children would be intended to die, not put in the Lebensborn program. Like I said, there are some similarities, but even with those the motivation and scale are just not comparable, no matter how hard you try.
In regards to the general killing of ukrainians, sorry but citing some fringe extremist voices as proof for what the russian plans are is as if I was to cite the crap PiS politicians spout during election as proof of polish intentions. Or like citing Tucker Carlson as indicator for what the US really thinks / wants. These kind of ideas in my opinion only make sense if you really want to see the russian government as comically evil to the point where they do evil things just for the sake of it.
It is perfectly clear that the massacres had approval from the very top. The Russian parliament even updated their legislation on how to properly make mass graves shortly before the invasion. I kid you not, they have laws describing how mass graves are supposed to be made.
No it is not at all. The mass graves only establish that killing off people was part of the plan, which I already agreed upon. What we disagree on is the scale and nature of the killing. And with massacres like Bucha, none of that is clear. You want it to be. A competing narrative is that for example Bucha was the reaction of russian troops in regards to taking severe casualties and blaming partisans or just retaliation. Still a massacre, still a warcrime, nothing that is defending what they did here, and the russian government is still ultimately responsible for it, even if they did not order it. And to me, that seems like a much more likely explanation of what happened because random killings to me do not fit the assimilation of ukraine. It also doesn't fit because so far these mass killings have been isolated events. Just because there have been planning for mass killings does not mean every mass killing was part of the plan. I am perfectly happy to agree the russian government condoned those killings, but for more I need a bit more than russian Tucker Carlson or [unhinged republican during election].
To me the mobile crematoriums as well as the massgraves were intended for the original plan of taking over ukraine with their "special military operation", killing off a number of people who can't be left alive, probably higher up military and politicians, while trying to be covert about it. With some more arguments I could probably even go so far as to entertain the idea that the mass graves regulation were just a preparation for the fact that there tends to be a good deal of dead people in a war.
As far as we know, the russian government expected that neither the military noir the general population would be this resistant. The expectation was that the population largely just goes along with it, just like with the LNR and DNR and crimea. This is much more in line with what we have seen, like with their efforts to coerce ukrainians into becoming russians rather than killing them, as well as the resources they originally allocated to the war. On no level did they expect large resistance. Unless we suddenly believe that LNR/DNR/crimea really did want to become russian and thus we did not see 60-80% of them being killed off. And even if you were 100% right and they would end up realising that 60-80% of ukrainians need to be murdered, then it is still not their main goal, its just what gets them there. Meanwhile, the murder of lesser races was a main goal of the nazis. Not a 3rd choice option that you pull when you realise they won't fit into german society and you can't re-educate them, it was their first and only choice.
Plus since we like to invoke the nazis so much... They quickly ended up realising that mass graves don't cut it, long before they even reached their first million murdered. And you talk about murder in the tens of millions and I am pretty sure lessons from the soviet union haven't been forgotten either. Mass graves don't cut it, largely depopulating ukraine is not something that is very useful for russia, russia consistently not killing off every pow they can get their hands on and even exchanging azov fighters does not fit it. Its almost as if there is a difference between the plans of the russian government and the propaganda they put out.
|
On June 05 2023 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 06:05 Magic Powers wrote:
KwarK, you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the word "choice". This is not a me-problem, but a you-problem. You don't understand what a choice is or isn't.
No, these soldiers do not have a choice. They do not choose to get beaten. Someone else has chosen that for them. Therefore any action they take that compels them to not get beaten is also not a choice. It's a catch-22. Do you understand what a catch-22 is or do I need to explain that concept to you like I would have to explain it to a little child? They had a choice to flee the country, they had a choice to dodge the draft, the had a choice for desertion, they potentially had a choice to surrender to Ukraine.
Really, did they? Then why are we seeing some of them surrender to Ukrainian troops, by walking across a few dusted fields that are getting bombed and are possibly mined?
|
United States43934 Posts
On June 05 2023 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 06:05 Magic Powers wrote:
KwarK, you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the word "choice". This is not a me-problem, but a you-problem. You don't understand what a choice is or isn't.
No, these soldiers do not have a choice. They do not choose to get beaten. Someone else has chosen that for them. Therefore any action they take that compels them to not get beaten is also not a choice. It's a catch-22. Do you understand what a catch-22 is or do I need to explain that concept to you like I would have to explain it to a little child? They had a choice to flee the country, they had a choice to dodge the draft, the had a choice for desertion, they potentially had a choice to surrender to Ukraine.
They had a choice to stand and fight and that was what their commander expected them to do and he's mad that they didn't do it. That's the whole premise of the example he's providing. The commander is angry because he wanted them to do one thing but they did another.
The whole premise of his example is
"look at what happens to people who make the wrong choice"
|
I'd like to remind people that Ardias is still in Russia. I (and presumably others as well) urged him to leave long ago. Would you argue that he's ok with the prospect of killing Ukrainians because he prefers taking the risk of getting drafted than leaving his family? Or would you somehow assume that he has an easy out if he gets drafted? Because people like KwarK are making this all sound really easy and obvious. I want to know how easy and obvious this all really is in reality. Please tell me how you would act in Ardias' shoes so everyone can see how morally superior you are to him. Because that's what you're thinking, right? That you're above Ardias, right? That you're better than him?
|
|
|
On June 05 2023 06:16 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:On June 05 2023 06:05 Magic Powers wrote:
KwarK, you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the word "choice". This is not a me-problem, but a you-problem. You don't understand what a choice is or isn't.
No, these soldiers do not have a choice. They do not choose to get beaten. Someone else has chosen that for them. Therefore any action they take that compels them to not get beaten is also not a choice. It's a catch-22. Do you understand what a catch-22 is or do I need to explain that concept to you like I would have to explain it to a little child? They had a choice to flee the country, they had a choice to dodge the draft, the had a choice for desertion, they potentially had a choice to surrender to Ukraine. Really, did they? Then why are we seeing some of them surrender to Ukrainian troops, by walking across a few dusted fields that are getting bombed and are possibly mined? I don't follow your point here. If we see it happen then the choice exists no? (for those somewhere near the front lines). It might not be the smartest choice and hold considerable danger but the choices exists.
Just because the choice not to flee/run/desert/surrender is earlier or safer doesn't absolve them of the consequences of their choice to stay with an army committing genocide.
|
United States43934 Posts
On June 05 2023 06:22 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd like to remind people that Ardias is still in Russia. I (and presumably others as well) urged him to leave long ago. Would you argue that he's ok with the prospect of killing Ukrainians because he prefers taking the risk of getting drafted than leaving his family? Or would you somehow assume that he has an easy out if he gets drafted? Because people like KwarK are making this all sound really easy and obvious. I want to know how easy and obvious this all really is in reality. Please tell me how you would act in Ardias' shoes so everyone can see how morally superior you are to him. Because that's what you're thinking, right? That you're above Ardias, right? That you're better than him?
I'm certainly better than you, but you probably still put on your grandfather's uniform from time to time. Germans and "not having any choice" is an iconic combo.
Ardias isn't fighting and I can't speak for what he would do if he was asked to participate in a genocidal war.
Let's go back to a simple example though.
Two men in two different rooms are both ordered at gunpoint to kill a child.
The first person, we'll call him Magic Powers, chooses kills the child to save his sorry worthless skin.
The second person, we'll call him KwarK, chooses death and is killed.
Which of them had a choice?
|
On June 05 2023 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 06:16 Magic Powers wrote:On June 05 2023 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:On June 05 2023 06:05 Magic Powers wrote:
KwarK, you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the word "choice". This is not a me-problem, but a you-problem. You don't understand what a choice is or isn't.
No, these soldiers do not have a choice. They do not choose to get beaten. Someone else has chosen that for them. Therefore any action they take that compels them to not get beaten is also not a choice. It's a catch-22. Do you understand what a catch-22 is or do I need to explain that concept to you like I would have to explain it to a little child? They had a choice to flee the country, they had a choice to dodge the draft, the had a choice for desertion, they potentially had a choice to surrender to Ukraine. Really, did they? Then why are we seeing some of them surrender to Ukrainian troops, by walking across a few dusted fields that are getting bombed and are possibly mined? I don't follow your point here. If we see it happen then the choice exists no? (for those somewhere near the front lines). It might not be the smartest choice and hold considerable danger but the choices exists. Just because the choice not to flee/run/desert/surrender is earlier or safer doesn't absolve them of the consequences of their choice to stay with an army committing genocide.
Why would Russian soldiers surrender to Ukraine if they had a choice? Someone with a choice wouldn't be there to begin with. The conclusion is therefore that they do not have a choice. I don't understand why this isn't really obvious to everyone here. Do people not understand the difference between an action and a choice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
