Cethin

Yeah, go ahead and have extra-genocide. I’m sure everyone being harmed appreciates that your maintaining your morals by instead doing nothing.

In the trolley problem you get a choice to pull the lever or not. Choosing not to is still a choice. In this one you can choose to divert the trolley to kill a fraction of the people, or choose to keep the trolley on course where it’ll kill the people on that other track and a bunch of others. Make your choice. You don’t get out of making a choice by abstaining. That’s still a choice.

No, it isn’t for them. It’s to bring attention to the subject and have other people pay attention, and hopefully rise up and demand change. The political class will do what’s convenient. It’s up to everyone else to make the most convenient choice the moral choice.

Seeing someone choose to die in what must be the most painful way possible indicates there must be some reason they feel so strongly. It then forces anyone paying even a little attention to confront what that reason is (assuming they did their messaging g well). Once they confront it, the hope is that they feel even a fraction of the conviction of these brave people.

Edit: I want to add, if you feel like taking this extreme action, make sure it’s truly the best option. There are so many ways to make your message heard and I’m doubtful this is the most useful. There are groups who could use your time/knowledge/conviction/money who are trying to creating change.

The same was said about the SCOTUS until recently, where it’s become very obvious it is political and has a ton of power to enact their political goals.

Wrong thread, but I want to push back anyway. AAA games prioritize graphics because it’s easier to market. Discussing mechanics is complex and opinionated. Saying “we have the most realistic graphics” is easy to showcase and objective. The average gamer isn’t educated on the concepts enough to have a discussion about mechanics, but they would understand good mechanics when they experience it.

However, they often aren’t even presented with the choice. The games with the largest marketing budgets are the bland “realistic” (and uninspired) looking games that don’t do anything new because it’s a risk. The games with a focus on good mechanics generally take more risks and have smaller budgets. Its similar to the problem with Windows VS Linux. The average user thinks they prefer Windows, but they’ve never been presented with the choice. When you buy a computer it comes with Windows, and they never venture further than that. They assume the thing they know must be the best option because they are familiar with it, and the one without marketing isn’t given a chance by those people.

It wouldn’t even be parity. That would require mass targeting of civilians, which I doubt Ukraine will do even if they were allowed and able to strike deep into Russia, as well as using chemical weapons and all kinds of other things.

The US (and some others, but the US is the largest obviously) is telling Ukraine they can’t use foreign weapons to attack into Russian territory. They are not allowed to use the weapons in the way they see as most useful. Especially with Russia using chemical weapons, they should be given the go-ahead to do what they see fitting with them.

It is not allowed by the US. It is not disallowed by international war crime agreements, but that doesn’t make it allowed if something else is preventing it.

Sure. That’s not what they were saying though. They were saying supplying arms to Israel is bad because they’re using it to commit a genocide, so we shouldn’t provide the means for Ukraine to defend themselves because it must be equally bad. Fuck that. If Ukraine doesn’t win Russia is going to do horrible things. They must be stopped. We should be providing the means for Ukraine to do this and allowing them to use them how they see it needed.

A gas mask wouldn’t work for this though, right? If it suffocates by displacing oxygen then you’d need an SCBA, not just a gas mask. That’s a lot more kit to supply and carry around.

It’s point of definition of left is further right than most people, especially on Lemmy. There is no absolute left or right. It’s not useful without defining what point is the center. Their center point is an (older) American center, but further right than most of the world (and likely a modern American).

Just a heads up, you betray your Russian supporting roots saying the Ukraine so openly. I’m assuming you accidentally typed it by habit, because most of the time you addressed them properly, but they aren’t just some regional dependant of Russia. They are an independent nation.

Russia is losing its troops and equipment. That’s why they aren’t using modern stuff anymore. You can find pictures of the modern stuff destroyed on the battlefield if you’re interested. They sent it in. They just got held back and their equipment was lost. It’s not a mystery. It’s publicly viewable to anyone curious.

Dude, Russia is not holding back it’s equipment. A lot of it is being tracked behind spotted on parade and such in Moscow and then blown up on the front. They didn’t even have optics for the vast majority of their troops despite the big advantage of the newer AK platform they adopted being that optics fit on them. You’d never see the US, for example, send that many troops to fight without optics, even assuming they’re holding back.

If Russia is holding equipment, they’re stupid. They should have just deployed it to the front and ended the war. They didn’t do this, and the reason is obvious: it doesn’t exist. They’re sending shit from the Cold War to the front because that’s what they’ve got. They aren’t some amazing superpower that’s just playing nice with poor little Ukraine. They want this war over desperately, so they would end it if they could.

Removed by mod

Sea lioning, for those curious what it’s called.

They’ll always be home by Christmas.

Yes.

Do you think normal rich assholes aren’t doing this stuff? That’s the whole issue with the Epstein stuff. Basically every rich asshole was involved. It takes a certain type of person to become so rich and powerful. Those people tend to like to have even more power over people, which makes minors the perfect target for them.

Never trust a rich and/or powerful person to be good; you’ll only be disappointed.

Famous internet people are generally willing to exploit people for their own gain. Not all of them, but particularly the most famous and powerful. The ones who aren’t usually can’t become as large. If you’re willing to exploit people for fame, money, and influence, you probably aren’t going to stop there.

They aren’t to be used on the front line. They still need soldiers to man the back lines and handle other stuff in the interior, like dig fallback trenches and all kinds of other things. They are supposed to fight and die if Ukraine comes into Russia though.

You are correct that they thinned out their line. They must think that’s an acceptable risk. Even top military advisors aren’t sure what the goals of the assault are (they have good guesses), so assuming we know if it’s worth it or not is really dumb.

The best reason I’ve seen I think is that Russia has to retake this land, no matter the cost. If Ukraine can come in and hold ground that’s a huge PR loss for Russia, who tells their citizens it can’t happen and they’re so strong. We’re coming up to winter. Historically, Ukraine does much better in defence, but also Russia stops assaulting during the winter. Holding this land in Russia creates a point that Russia has to attack, even in the winter.

There are also many other reasons, such as they’re working on a very large logistics cutoff by destroying some bridges that are now the only way for Russia to access after the push. Any way they can put more strain on Russia’s supply line is huge. Their soldiers were already seemingly not super well supplied. It also creates situations where Russia is redeploying to counter this push and Ukraine can use its extremely accurate HIMARS to get a lot of kills while they’re grouped up in trucks.

Basically, there are a lot of potential advantages, and the cost seems to have been minimal, mostly opporutiny cost. We can only trust their military leaders aren’t idiots, which they don’t seem to be. Making assumptions on our own, or even listening to military experts, is not going to be accurate. Everyone is making guesses at best.