"Some of you may be willing to die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" but unironically
Edit: The user has since apologised https://hexbear.net/comment/3848285
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
There is no proof that Russia is deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure like hospitals. Likewise there is no proof it isn't - how do you prove a negative?
We can however observe the slow pace in the beginning of the war, where Russia broke with modern doctrine of taking out critical infrastructure.
We can also look at the many long lasting sieges of large cities, where Russia made sure to create humanitarian corridors (the corridors that have received immense critique for being kidnapping operations somehow).
We can also think for ourselves: if Russia was deliberately targeting such buildings, why did it not do so at the start of the war, and why does it not target all of these building, or target them in such a way that they are permanently and completely destroyed?
What's more likely: Russia is deliberately targeting schools and hospitals (but only kinda) in order to kill civilians because... Russia is just super evil? These deliberate acts of violence are carried out against a population that has shared a border with Russia for more than a century, with many russian citizens having family and friends in the country, yet Russia just wants to murder civilians.
OR Russia is fighting a war against an enemy that uses civilians as human shields and the war is often in large urban centres, which means that civilian targets are nigh impossible to completely avoid?
Why would you think the best of russia to begin with? They send conscripts & mobilized citizens off to a war that didn't need to happen. They prevent many of their own from leaving the country... it's the poor who will suffer the most.
Why now and not in the beginning? I don't know for sure, but wars often end when one side loses the will to fight ... maybe they are trying to wear down the will of the Ukrainians and allies? If the Ukrainian media is to believed, it doesn't seem to be working. It sounds like it will be a long one.
Edit: Your last link didn't link to the original OHCHR report, and presents a one-sided view. You can find the proper report linked to from here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/07/high-commissioner-human-rights-high-numbers-civilian-casualties-ukraine
I try not to assume anything. Which is why I responded to you with observable facts.
I then led these lead to ask you questions, which you fail to answer. You also fail to engage with the arguments presented to you, instead inventing a reality of your own whole cloth.
Russia is not preventing people from leaving Ukraine is. Russia has, as I've said already ensured to create humanitarian corridors for which it has been critiqued. Russia isn't the one using civilians as human shields, Ukraine is [1] [2].
I frankly find it insulting how you keep asking questions, get responses and then choose to write these half-assed replies barely responding to the content of what the other writes to you. Fuck you.
Yeah good okay, keep doing this then, why would you ever want to argue in good faith, fuck me for assuming you weren't just being a dumbass debatebro nitpicking bullshit. You linked to the press release by the way, and you linked in the edit after I responded, and the report still states they make use of human shields. But hey why argue in good faith, when you can be just like Ben Shapiro instead? Why ever discuss in good faith, you might learn something or change your perspective, or at least foster an environment where we can have am open exchange of knowledge and disagree on analysieswithout bad vibes. No this thing you're doing is clearly the way forward.
Eat shit asshole
Such a weaselly thing to do. And they still stick to engaging with very select parts of the argument. It's disingenuous and weak. They should've been shoved into more lockers as a child.
The press release contains a clear and obvious link to the report itself. I didn't claim otherwise.
You provided a link to some pro-russian propaganda that selectively quoted from what seems to be a fair and balanced report. I provided a link to the press release for the original report, and point out that it has more to it than the selective quotes.
You then claim bad faith. Given the ease with which you claim bad faith whenever anyone argues with you, I think that you should define what you mean by good and bad faith.
And now you promote bullying/violence with the reference to school lockers? Grow up.
Fuck you, stop nitpicking, stop doing weasel shit, engage with the arguments instead of doing this debatebro bullshit. You say I "claim bad faith" despite me clearly describing TWICE what it is you are doing that is bad faith. You're not being clever, it's obvious what you are doing, you're a sad little impotent porridge farmer, with nothing between the ears.
Fuck you, I hope you get an open fracture
Nitpicking says the guy who whined about a clearly marked edit on a comment. Whatever man.
You're doing it again :) You focus on one single issue presented amidst a wealth of others (this I have already explained to you twice, but of course you do not engage with it, instead pretending you have not had this and other things explained), which you then misrepresent in order to create a point that's easier for you to prove. fuck you.
The report itself still details the use of human shields used by Ukraine. This point was one of many, but instead you choose to focus on me not picking the official press release, rather than the contents of the argument - an argument that was not just about Ukrainian civilians being used as human shields. You are willful- why am I walking you thru this again? I know you're just going to misrepresent and misinterpret a single point made, focus on that and then act as if you've done something. Fuck you.
Most of the time I am on my phone which isn't the best for essay style responses. If I notice a particular point that is worth commenting on, then I focus on that point. Sometimes I forget to quote just that point which may be confusing, and I apologise for that.
You tend to write a lot and jump all over the place trying to answer everything at once and introduce new points, preempting questions, and throwing in personal criticisms and judgements, which is quite exhausting. I suspect that you also jump to the conclusion that because I am criticising one point, that I am criticising everything.
I used to write work emails a bit like that, until I got similar feedback a few years back. The threaded approach is also common in business messaging apps, shared editing of documents, etc.
I do appreciate your good English. It's far too rare these days.
I wonder whether it would be worth it for hexbear to maintain an FAQ or wiki, as I think you and others spend a lot of time repeating the same things to many people. Sometimes a link is worth a thousand words.
the favorite thing that pro-Ukraine libs love to do is make up a goal for Russia out of thin air and then boast that they haven't achieved it. as if they uniquely understand and can remotely probe the Slavic brain with their superior Western minds. If Ukraine puts combatants inside hospitals or schools, which they have done, then Russia is under no obligation to not hit them. clearly, Russia's track record of not bombing hospitals or schools with civilians inside isn't 100%, because that's almost impossible to do in a war this size without clairvoyant abilities - there is always uncertainty. we don't excuse those hits when they happen, but let's also not pretend that Ukraine hasn't been hitting Russian civilian buildings too.