Your comments are a prime example of the fallacies of analytical (as opposed to dialectical) thinking. I’m talking about the broader interconnections, relations, tendencies, and you’re trying to shift the focus from the system into its constituent parts. Of course, if you do that, you can get any conclusion you want. The fact of the matter is you can’t look at Israel without looking at the US, you can’t look at Kamala without looking at the American government.
You’re asking - “what would Kamala asking for ceasefire change”. I say - Kamala is part of the American government, which is dead set on supporting Israel, and she wouldn’t magically change her mind, because her consciousness, like anyone else’s, is shaped by her social being. That said, that doesn’t mean she won’t ever change her mind - if she does, it would be indicative of broader shifts and contradictions among American elites. Her asking for ceasefire wouldn’t be a cause - it would be a symptom. As for what American support for a ceasefire change, I wrote about that in my comment above.
Calling it a logical fallacy to ask you to respond to the topic discussed in the thread has gotta be a new level of hypocrisy/coping.
The reality of you propoganda groups from Russia, is you have a two faced theory on responsibility of government. All other people of other nations or governments are responsible for all actions taken by all individuals of their nation, but everybody in Russia is a victim of government thus not responsible for any actions or intellectual honesty on the conversation of government.
Yall can’t make a functioning government of your own but think you have what it takes to improve others lmao.
You clearly do not understand how a Democratic government works if you think a VP can just override the will of representatives from dozens of states who represent millions of people.
If you can’t participate in a conversation in good faith then fuck off.
You are claiming that I said VP can magically override the US policy, while I said the exact opposite - VP can’t and won’t do shit unless the entire government undergoes a broad ideological shift.
Before that, you talked about responsibility, which I didn’t talk about at all. I simply said that Israel exists in its current form thanks to the US, which is objectively true. There’s no “responsibility” or “morals” in saying that much, and people all across the political spectrum can agree with this.
And no, I didn’t call what you said a logical fallacy, because fallacy and logical fallacy are two different terms (leaving aside whether what you are saying is indeed a logical fallacy).
It’s doesn’t matter if you’re from Russia. If he thinks they’re sending their best and brightest propagandists to the comment mines on lemmy to argue for a materialist understanding of American geopolitics then he’s either delusionally paranoid or arguing in bad faith.
lmao he has to be an imperialist shill right?
I can’t believe that someone would be that clueless, and still be insistent on staying that clueless after being spoonfed multiple public sources
Your comments are a prime example of the fallacies of analytical (as opposed to dialectical) thinking. I’m talking about the broader interconnections, relations, tendencies, and you’re trying to shift the focus from the system into its constituent parts. Of course, if you do that, you can get any conclusion you want. The fact of the matter is you can’t look at Israel without looking at the US, you can’t look at Kamala without looking at the American government.
You’re asking - “what would Kamala asking for ceasefire change”. I say - Kamala is part of the American government, which is dead set on supporting Israel, and she wouldn’t magically change her mind, because her consciousness, like anyone else’s, is shaped by her social being. That said, that doesn’t mean she won’t ever change her mind - if she does, it would be indicative of broader shifts and contradictions among American elites. Her asking for ceasefire wouldn’t be a cause - it would be a symptom. As for what American support for a ceasefire change, I wrote about that in my comment above.
It wouldn’t even necessarily be that: it might have been empty rhetoric to assuage the masses and lubricate the genocide.
Calling it a logical fallacy to ask you to respond to the topic discussed in the thread has gotta be a new level of hypocrisy/coping.
The reality of you propoganda groups from Russia, is you have a two faced theory on responsibility of government. All other people of other nations or governments are responsible for all actions taken by all individuals of their nation, but everybody in Russia is a victim of government thus not responsible for any actions or intellectual honesty on the conversation of government.
Yall can’t make a functioning government of your own but think you have what it takes to improve others lmao.
You clearly do not understand how a Democratic government works if you think a VP can just override the will of representatives from dozens of states who represent millions of people.
If you can’t participate in a conversation in good faith then fuck off.
You are claiming that I said VP can magically override the US policy, while I said the exact opposite - VP can’t and won’t do shit unless the entire government undergoes a broad ideological shift.
Before that, you talked about responsibility, which I didn’t talk about at all. I simply said that Israel exists in its current form thanks to the US, which is objectively true. There’s no “responsibility” or “morals” in saying that much, and people all across the political spectrum can agree with this.
And no, I didn’t call what you said a logical fallacy, because fallacy and logical fallacy are two different terms (leaving aside whether what you are saying is indeed a logical fallacy).
deleted by creator
lmao
at least they got half of it right, I indeed live in Russia
It’s doesn’t matter if you’re from Russia. If he thinks they’re sending their best and brightest propagandists to the comment mines on lemmy to argue for a materialist understanding of American geopolitics then he’s either delusionally paranoid or arguing in bad faith.
This debatebro had a couple of bullshit sessions over Russia yesterday in one post:
lmao he has to be an imperialist shill right? I can’t believe that someone would be that clueless, and still be insistent on staying that clueless after being spoonfed multiple public sources
He’s probably not even getting paid, just shilling for the imperial bourgeoisie pro bono.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod