that’s clearly not from terminator

this guy is a minion

well, it apparently was an issue for me on Mint, when i just switched from windows.

I might misremember things, but i believe some Microsoft stuff was inside PPA, so for someone just switching from windows it’s actually more likely to delve into the apt fuckery.

Noob distro btw

lol, didn’t know that

Neither money nor states are dogmatic in their nature. They exist under some basis, that can be verified, and that defines their properties. Gods have arbitrary abilities that cannot be verified.

The only benefits of a religion are being a part of community and coping with reality. The first is not unique to religion, the second is delusional and leads to lots of misjudgement, harms one’s ability to percieve and analyze the objective reality. In other words, even the benefits are quite controversial in their usefulness here.

By the way, if you think about this, religion as a coping mechanism is as widespread only because it have been a substitute for more healthy alternatives for literal milleniums.

Religion should be a thing of past, but alas, magical thinking is still strong in modern society. To get rid of religions, first and foremost we should teach people about common logic fallacies and manipulations, so they would detect and avoid them more easily

Try out fedora if you ever get tired of snaps and other bs.

Otherwise, if it works, good for you

except it doesn’t. Fixed release model quite easily gets in a way of doing shit. Need to add a PPA into config for each separate package you need the latest release of, or simply because the package itself is absent in the normal repo doesn’t help either. And don’t get me started on troubleshooting after “doing shit”.

Something like fedora does a much better job if you prefer fixed release, but if you like to experiment and “do shit”, arch derivatives like Endeavor or Cachy are just better suited for you. All of the above also have a much nicer documentation than Mint.

I believe that people recommending Mint do so only because they once heard that it was a noob distro themselves. When i first switched to linux, i had lots of issues with it. I especially struggled with troubleshooting. EndeavorOS was my second, and it was perfect for me until i discovered CachyOS.

kubuntu and mint are basically the same, spare the desktop environment. I think something like Fedora, EndeavorOS plus CachyOS and Bazzite for gamers sounds more fair of a possible suggestion list. Unlike Mint, all of those have comprehensive wiki, Fedora and Bazzite for those preferring fixed release, and EOS and CachyOS for rolling-release.

Same. Idk why i’m this way, but i’m so introverted that i can can avoid social interactions for months. The fact that it gets more prominent and prolonged with time kinda troubles me tbh.

Sure, except all of those define a culture, and not a nation. For instance, France, the very first national state no less, contains multiple such cultures. Italy as well, became a thing only when the Napoleon came. Despite having cultural and linguistic differences, italians still somehow consider themself italians.

The definition of a nation really is an ambiguous one, and there’s no wonder. It initially was invented to overthrow the monarchic regime, while retaining all the territories of said monarchy. Ambiguity arises as soon as you try to draw a border between cultures, dividing them into separate nations. You see, everything culture-related comes in gradients, rather than distinct islands. How’d you distinguish eastern ukrainian from western russian? How’d you distinguish Western slovak from eastern czech? Because even linguistic and genetic analysis won’t be a guarantee there.

And the way the modern society is, with all the globalism, all the relocations, diasporas and etcetera, the idea of a national state completely loses its purpose, other than to separate the local resources, regime and economy, of course.

Separation of a culture can lead to enhancement of individual life quality, but so does the adjustment of inner politics. “Liberation” as you call it, does not change the economic potential of any given region, yet introduces migration-related beuraucracy complications, devoiding people of possible social lifts, while allowing for third party influence that might lead to conflict, you know, like it was with Ukraine:).

Also, local authorities might exploit their compatriots just the same the occupants did.

In other words, “liberation” is a step into the void, that doesn’t guarantee anything, and nationalism is nothing more than a way for manipulation and indoctrination to instill further segregation, that, as i said, is neither necessary nor relevant in the modern day.

That’s why we should fight both nationalism, and imperialism and unite based of political views rather than cultural heritage. And it’s not like nobody had done anything similar before, USA was exactly about that before it became the world exploitating hegemony we know today. That’s what USSR was about at its inception as well.

Stop thinking about the world apparatus the way people did in 19th century, the world had quite changed since then, and to change further and do so for the better, rather than for worse, we should think with our heads rather than dogmatically follow the theories of those who never tried them on practice, while having far less information about their world than we do.

Anyway, how did the liberation of Vietnam affect the common people? And were the positive changes the effects of liberation, or just a result of the regime change for the more progressive one, as well as the result of the war finally ending? What modern Vietnam represents as a sovereign economic unit, and could the common people be wealthier and happier if the country would’ve been a part of a larger state?

we’re not playing that Charlie Kirk bullshit game.

Charlie Kirk was a politician, and operated on political level. His reason for doing all the “debate me” charade is purely of media representation interests.

By punching a “nazi” you’ll only get punched in return, and further villanize yourself in “nazi’s” view. Considering that there still lots of people with quite conservative views, by “punching a nazi” you would do a counter-productive job at proving your worldview, thus making your opponents more confident in theirs.

Cool, which is exactly what this comic is about. The individual man is being a dick, and getting judged for it.

Except my issue is not with the comic. It’s with you treating people as obstacles. Dehumanization is a not nice thing to do due to multiple reasons.

I have been wrong many times, and I’ve been rightfully ripped into for it.

you seem to fail at differentiating between critique and pure hatred. Right now you’re spreading nothihg but hatred, and that’s why i said that you’re not much better than the people you hate. You use your sense of morality to justify the hatred, they use theirs. The result is the same: no actions taken, only people going for each other’s throats. Basically, you’re just as “nazi”, the difference is only in the agenda you push. They too believe to be morally correct, you know.

People won’t be able to change unless you point them out, where they ought to change and why, and society is kinda not a thing without the communication.

Yes, there are people incapable of change, and yes, they deserve the hate. Only those are always in a minority.

Nationalists weren’t the only one upset. Lots of people wanted Ukraine to head west, because western (as in EU) economic ties seemed to have far brighter perspectives than the russian ones. More over, it still is, as Russia has all the resources needed to surpass EU in every way possible, yet it struggles, thanks to the degree of corruption present, as well as its oligarchic nature. Orientation for EU promised the potential to get Ukraine out of the state it had been in after the 90s.

Secondly, saying slavic peoples share a lot in common is similar to saying Chinese ethnicities have a lot in common.

Except there isn’t, as i already stated, unless, once again, as i already stated, if we’re talking about cultural minorities, present in particular isolated regions of both countries. Ukrainian region had significant cultural differences, only those lost its relevance when the soviet era came into place, and i’ve already explained why. The differences between modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are mainly political, and it becomes really apparent as soon as you compare a ukrainian to russian, and then to polish or slovakian.

Until you point out the concrete differences on which basis “ethnic cleansing” could be commensed, your point will sound ridiculous to me, born ukrainian, who happened to be friends with individuals from far west and far east both of Ukraine and Russia, as well i hapen to be aquainted with some belarussians and kazakhs. I also did visit Moscow before the shit stirred, lived in Czechia, and been to Poland after. I think i have some credibility on the topic of modern slavic cultures and their differences, thank you very much.

Your argument about “ethnic cleansing” is not even remotely representative of my observed reality. If it was the case, there would’ve been family tree investigations on the whole ukrainian territory, concentration camps as all people from investigated regions would’ve been suspended, and so on. Cities like Kharkiv, Odessa, or Dnipro would’ve also been “cleansed” just as the Ukrainian far east supposedly was, those regions had voted for Yanukovich in their majority after all, and people there also primarily speak russian.

Nobody seemed to “cleanse” them, until the “valiant Russian military” came and did it first tho. And that was despite Kremlins agenda about the need to defend russian speakers no matter in what part of the world they live. People freely fled the eastern regions since the very start of armed conflicts as well, and the ukrainian government was aiding them at that.

Regarding the nationality, those movements are irrelevant to what i’ve said. Both imperialism and national liberation should not exist. First is cancerous and exploitative in its nature, second is based on a fictional idea of nationality and leads to nothing more than poverty and infighting after the liberation part is done.

Let me repeat myself, nationalism is a tool of tribalism, and tribalism leads to disasters. See modern Ukraine, modern Russia, modern US, the whole deal with Kosovo or the Nagorno-Korabakh conflict.

And where nationalism isn’t a disaster yet, it results in bigotry and prejudice. See eastern-european countries like Czech Republic or Poland.

Liberating countries only seems like a great idea on paper, only, without the proper economic conditions being met, the result is always far from beneficial. Post-soviet countries or Balkans are great examples. “We have nothing to eat, our country has no means of economical growth, but at least we have our fantasy about how we first came to be independent, and it really unites us” ~ uggh, thanks no thanks, keep this shit to yourself. It’s degenerative and outright harmful to think in those categories, or instill such thinking onto others, and gives of “divide and conquer” type of narrative. People are people, and should be treated as such first and foremost. If you deceive them “for the greater good”, or because sovereignity on some imaginary basis is morally correct in your book, that just makes you a manipulative cunt, treating people as means to an end.

National division ceases to exist only if everyone is emancipated, which is not possible. Unless the state is large enough to have all the resources to not only achieve its emancipation, but also prolong it indefinitely, it is inherently dependent on others, which in turn leads to power imbalance, therefore conflicts on that basis, which in turn, leads to tribalistic behaviour. In modern doctrine that amounts to rises of nationalistic ideologies in such regions.

And once again, you don’t sound persuasive, if all you can is to insist for me to read some book, without ability to provide sufficient arguments yourself. A reference without citation is worthless, and cannot be considered a counter-thesis. Such behaviour only makes me think, that you prefer blindly accepting any information presented by authoritative-enough source, to applying critical thinking and analysis of said information yourself.

I, for one, won’t ever recommend a book to a rando on the internet, unless directly asked to do so. Especially if we’re talking about politics and worldviews. The world is constantly changing,but the books don’t. They where written in a certain context, for people that existed inside of that context. They are nothing more than a dead knowledge of the past with not necessarily correct world’s perception of the author layered on top, and they should be treated as such. Meaning, while reading a text we should always compare the depicted reality with the observed one. Otherwise you’re just falling into dogmatism.

If this wasn’t the case for you, you’d be able to provide sufficient reasoning yourself based on pure logic and observed information. Instead, you’re spouting the same bs about ethnic cleansing third time in a row, completely ignoring my counter-arguments, as well as defending the need for practicing the ideology that should be history in our modern globalistic society, purely because it serves as a tool of political manipulation, and is suggested as such by some book.

Not the main one, but sure.

You treat them as less than human, unworthy to have a dialogue with. They treat a group of people as less than human too. The only difference is the pretext. The cause can be good or bad, it doesn’t justify crappy behaviour.

I’m not saying “turn on another cheek”, I’m saying that an individual is not responsible for the deeds of another individual, both of which you’ve attributed to the same group. Groups are abstractions anyway, people should be judged individually and based of their actions, otherwise it’s just plain bigotry.

I also said that it’s only human to make mistake in your judgements and worldviews. That means that someday anyone could end up on the receiveing end, yourself included. If such people are ostracized, it will only lead to further radicalization of their erronous views, further polarizing both sides of conflict.

i’d dissapoint you, but the thing the prevous commenter listed are not unique to America nor the western world. It’s not the KGB necessarily, it’s just how the manipulations work. You don’t have to read KGB books to apply them

“being combative” is not a constant character trait, but rather a response behavior.

And everyone can be wrong even in their strongest opinions, including yourself. Would you prefer to be the “roadblock that needs to go” when such occurs, or you’d rather have a chance to correct your opinion?

Unlike the popular belief, people can and do change. Your words here haracterize you just as combative on the matter. What makes you better than any other human being? They too believe their ideas to be the correct ones.

Treating anyone, however wrong in their ways, as nothing more than an obstacle that needs to be removed, you only make yet another person hostile towards you and your ideas, making everything only worse.

Yanukovych taking the Russian loan is why the west couped him, though.

my point still stands. You can’t light a wet log, just as you can’t initiate a coup (especially of this scale), if people happy with the present regime.

And If we’re delving into discussing only the geopolitical reasons, the current war, judging by the deeds of either political side, is held mainly due to the resources found on the east of Ukraine.

It isn’t at all safe to assume. These are Nazis literally calling themselves as such.

They can call themselves whatever atrocious things they want and use whatever symbolics they want to our mutual distaste, (i’d still like to hear where they stated that they’re nazis tho) yet their ideology doesn’t match to the one of nazis’.

To be frank, i’m so tired of this shit. I wonder, how much years will pass until people finally stop competing, who’d first claim their political opponent to be Hitler. Literally the most basic attempt at dehumanization. And just fyi, claims about russians being nazis where just as many.

Russia and Ukraine have distinct ethnicities, culture, and language…

Of course they’re not the same, yet, as i previously said, linguistic attribution does not work universally, there are quite many Ukrainians for whom russian is their main language. Such cases are occurent on all of the Ukrainian territory.

The ethnic mix is also practically indistinguishable, as i, once again, had already stated.

Modern culture is as well quite troublesome to distinguish, due to intercultural communication, apparent in the past, and bracically universal in the modern day thanks to the internet.

There are few exceptions regarding the ethnicity and culture in some isolated regions, like Carpathian or Caucasian mountains, but those always were a minority.

Ah yes, the internet. if you’re anywhere from the post-ussr part of the earth, you’d know how close and indistinguishable those cultures really are, because you’d be able to find lots of common cultural experience simply hanging out in the post-soviet internet space, aka runet.

Tracking by family tree would also be troublesome. Many ukrainians have relatives in Russia and other way around.

Yes, i’m afraid that the russian far-right are not entirely wrong, there is really a lot in common. It doesn’t justify their wish for “rebuilding” the “ussr” tho.

War isn’t ethnic cleansing, while Kiev actively targeted ethnic Russians.

once again, neither “Russian” nor “Ukrainian” are ethnoses. And once again, especially if we’re talking about the Eastern Ukraine, you will be able to distingush one from another only by asking for their passport. On what basis you call that “ethnic cleansing”, because not only Ukrainians and Russians are indistinguishable from each other, there where political progams, aiding easteners with relocation to safer regions.

The motives you assumed just do not correlate with the actions that were taken.

The assumption that fighting began due to discovery of atural resources on the Ukrainian east just adds up better.

I despise the nationalism of imperialist states like the US, but support the nationalism of countries like Burkina Faso

quite the double standards you got there. Nationality as a concept is nothing more than a hoax, first invented in France during the revolution.

It’s a mean of manipulation to instill large-scale tribalism into people. I believe people of the modern age should unite based of their political ideology, rather than based of a national myth. And guess what, they already do. Only the modern political system doesn’t take this into account, so what we get is a set of countries united on surface, but very polarised underneath.

Such state of constant in-fighting is inevitable in national states, and emerges as soon as external threat ceases.

In other words, nationalism is a bad tool and should be thrown out.

State independence should also come after the well-being and prosperity of individual people inhabiting said state. In other words, if a country isn’t providing sufficient degree of well-being to its citizens, it should be merged with its neigbor in equibenificial manner. As soon as the region becomes prosperous enough to function as a sovereign political unit, it should be separated back. Otherwise, it only serves for the benefit of those in power, and nationalism helps them keep it that way.

Russian-Ukrainian situation is a pretty good example actually. While neigbours kill each other in trenches, those in power have the time of their life, having more control than any their predecessor, as the war serves to be a huge leverage point for them.

Yanukovych took the Russian loan…

Taking the russian loan is not the only, and is not the main issue people had with him.

…but because the west put literal Nazis in power. Ukraine isn’t being run by nazis either. Calling the nationalists “nazis” because of nazi-adjasent symbolics some of them use is the same as calling modern russian regime nazi because of the active use of Georgian ribbon, that was once used by nazi collaborationists.

It’s pretty safe to assume that they use those symbols because they where used by anti-russian movements of the past, rather than because they believe in race superriority and need for killing jews in camps.

Russia was not and is not ethnically cleansing Ukrainians like Ukraine is towards Russians.

lol.

First, i’d like you to re-read my previous comment, as i added a few paragraphs. My bad for doing that after publishing it in the first place, i know, sorry, didn’t expect you to reply that quick

Second, how tf would anyone define a russian from ukrainian? Those are not ethnicities in the first place. Cultural differences are practically non-existent. Even language. I already told about all of that.

How the fuck are the eastern conflicts prior to 2022 are “ethinic cleansing”, but all-out war with the objective to seize Eastern Ukraine, resulting in tens of thousands ukrainians dead is not “ethnic cleansing” to you?

Also, good on you for defending the “good and fluffy nationalism” so that the “evil imerialism” won’t come. Look out of the window and see for yourself how well this twist of logic works. Every modern country is national, and it doest prevent corporate imperialism in any way. Every country is national, yet we still got NATO. And nato would’ve bossibly been a good thing, if only it wasn’t just a US plaything. US regime is quite nationalist btw. Doesn’t prevent their imperialistic advances in any way.

Thanks for sharing the “good read”, but unless i see any reasoning that you extracted from it, i won’t consider it good. And it just so happens that your reasoning is not the best so far.

p.s. wow, my instance was down unusually long. Well, my instance is back, so here it goes. Happy new year btw!

i’m not saying it wasn’t influenced by the west. It wouldn’t have been successful without the context i mentioned tho. You know, where Russia tried to influence Ukraine and failed.

Also, it’s not like Russia ever tried to de-escalate this, on the contrary, since the Ukrainian revolution against Yanukovich regime, russian outlets haven’t missed any opportunity to portray Ukraine as some kind of a nazi state. It’s kinda natural of people to unite against a bigger enemy, so no wonder that the more Russia screamed about how nationalistic Ukraine is, the more nationalistic it became, with it’s peak at the start of the war.

It’s really a shame, and so fucking embarassing that political forces of the historical regions of Ukraine and Russia never got along.

The fact that modern ukrainian nationalists use ww2 related symbols only proves that, and nothing else. To call them nazis is the same as to call Russian regime a nazi one, as they too use symbolics of nazi collaborationists. What’s really funny is that they use it as a symbol of victory in ww2.

Just for the clarification sake, i don’t indulge nationalism. More over, i hate the very concept of nationality, as it has little to do with reality, and only serves propagandist purposes. And what you’re doing here is defending one group of nationalists by attacking the other.

I refuse to delve into why the so called anti-terroristic operation had started, because we both have no evidence about the actual reasons, just what the news outlets of either side wanted their people to believe. I’ll just say that given that “the west” managed to influence the western Ukraine, it’s entirely not off the table that Russia had their people on the east itself. Especially considering that there’s no linguistic, cultural, nor ethnic barriers to blend in, and the fact that the border between the two coutries was quite easily passable before the shit went south.

edit: Your reasoning for it also doesn’t check out, considering the creation of internal displacement programs Ukraine had created, and humanitarian aid it provided, that is, if by “the war” you mean the territorial conflicts that lasted for eight years, before the official war started.

And if you’re talking about the current conflict, i’m afraid, “the banderites” weren’t the ones who had started it. Belarus wouldn’t have been boasting about the so called “preemptive strike” that Russia landed on “Ukrainian positions” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_now_I_will_show_you_where_the_attack_on_Belarus_was_prepared_from)

while i agree with your first statement, your point about “far-right banderites” and ethic cleansing are loughable.

Rise of nationalistic ideologies in Ukraine is quite consiqential. It’s a reaction to Russian attempts at gaining political control via puppet figures. Russia reacted to that reaction, Ukraine then reacted to that, and now we have the mess we have. Absolutely moronic, yet here we are.

And ethnic cleansing, seriously? “Ukrainian” and “Russian” are not athnicities. Even cultures don’t differ that much. The only notable difference is the language, except even there it’s not that simple. The more to the east of Ukraine you got, the more russian-speaking people there you’d meet, which is fairly normal, but you’d still meet those even on the western half. I’m not even talking about cities like Odessa where the majority always was and still is speaking Russian. Nobody seem to ever attempt to “ethnically clense” Odessa. I wonder why…

Some aquaintances of mine from eastern Ukraine would also be quite surprised to know that they apparently were “ethnically cleansed”.

While i agree about the USSR being democratic, i’d like to know on what basis you state that USA or EU isn’t democratic.

As well as i’d like to know, on what base you assume that holodomor is a hoax.