Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?
And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.
My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.
Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn’t peaceful coexistence.
Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism?
If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy.
Oh sorry, you’re an ultra, my mistake.
How is it idealistically opposing everyone everywhere and never accomplishing anything?
Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?
And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.
Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context.
Do you even support anything?
My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.
You said appeasement.
Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point?
Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn’t peaceful coexistence.
Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism?
If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy.
The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression.
Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions?