The Kiss Your Arse Goodbye Thread

[RD2003]

You recognize that Russia was fucked by gangsters, but you don't appear to make the obvious connection between kremlin-backed gangsters stealing everything, and the kremlin then having to find an external enemy to blame for this. You accept there was in fact an external enemy, and I don't really think there was. "The west" became an enemy (again) because the kremlin needed one, a believable one, to distract from the crimes of its nearest and dearest against its own people. Viz also Chechnyan Muslims.

I doubt that an external enemy could have been found, at least to the west, had not NATO not started to make noises about Ukraine and Georgia being future members. Russia had previously objected to eaastward NATO expansion without doing anything substantial, or even anything beyond words.

It isn't a case of gangsters/mafia being Kremlin-backed, although they became so (initially under Yeltsin, with limits being imposed after Putin's rise). Mafia capitalism was an inevitable result of economic and social collapse (the social collapse was real, but limited by the population's ability to keep their heads), and the Kremlin, penetrated by it, indeed populated at the highest level by people who were participants in it, had no choice but to build a system around it. As I keep pointing out, the west was far from an enemy to the Yeltsin regime. It had western backing, even when Yeltsin bombed his own parliament because he couldn't force it to agree with his western-backed policies. More recent developments are due to the Kremlin apparently ditching pragmatic nationalism in favour of a more 'philosophical' Russian nationalism, at least in part due to a perception of being viewed by the west as an enemy.

 

[mojo pixy]

I doubt that an external enemy could have been found, at least to the west, had not NATO not started to make noises about Ukraine and Georgia being future members. Russia had previously objected to eaastward NATO expansion without doing anything substantial, or even anything beyond words.

It isn't a case of gangsters/mafia being Kremlin-backed, although they became so (initially under Yeltsin, with limits being imposed after Putin's rise).

lol no, Putin just brought it in-house, Yeltsin was neither organised, connected, or sober enough to do that.

Mafia capitalism was an inevitable result of economic and social collapse

You're putting the cart before the horse here.

(the social collapse was real, but limited by the population's ability to keep their heads), and the Kremlin, penetrated by it, indeed populated at the highest level by people who were participants in it, had no choice but to build a system around it.

Again, no. The kremlin was a willing participant / facilitator and remains so.

As I keep pointing out, the west was far from an enemy to the Yeltsin regime. It had western backing, even when Yeltsin bombed his own parliament because he couldn't force it to agree with his western-backed policies.

Once again with the west was to blame. Yeltsin did that out of self-interest. Putin would do the same, and probably will when the Duma finally turns against him.

Russia and Russian leaders are just pathetic in your analysis. No agency, no choices, just puppets, it's absurd and patronising.

More recent developments are due to the Kremlin apparently ditching pragmatic nationalism in favour of a more 'philosophical' Russian nationalism, at least in part due to a perception of being viewed by the west as an enemy.

Again, cart before horse. The change in philosophy is to justify the more aggressive stance. "perception of being viewed by" what? How about we cut through the sophism: the kremlin needs an external enemy, so it has made one.

I am beginning to understand your position though. "The west" (whatever that is) controls everything and everyone in the world so that whatever happens anywhere is their fault. Whoever they are.

It needs work IMO.

 

[RD2003]

lol no, Putin just brought it in-house, Yeltsin was neither organised, connected, or sober enough to do that.

You're putting the cart before the horse here.

Again, no. The kremlin was a willing participant / facilitator and remains so.

Once again with the west was to blame. Yeltsin did that out of self-interest. Putin would do the same, and probably will when the Duma finally turns against him.

Russia and Russian leaders are just pathetic in your analysis. No agency, no choices, just puppets, it's absurd and patronising.

Again, cart before horse. The change in philosophy is to justify the more aggressive stance. "perception of being viewed by" what? How about we cut through the sophism: the kremlin needs an external enemy, so it has made one.

I am beginning to understand your position though. "The west" (whatever that is) controls everything and everyone in the world so that whatever happens anywhere is their fault. Whoever they are.

It needs work IMO.

All off this is simply daft, and a result of an apparent psychological need to see the world as divided between goodies and baddies, and to see yourself on the side of good.

 

[Nylock]

God, Beau is a tedious twat.

what do you find tedious about him? (genuine question btw)

 

[mojo pixy]

All off this is simply daft, and a result of an apparent psychological need to see the world as divided between goodies and baddies, and to see yourself on the side of good.

You're not actually arguing against it though. And tbh, your analysis comes across totally as good victim Russia vs. bad assailant 'the west' so look in a mirror and stop projecting. Psychological need ffs

Tell me why I'm wrong, because just saying it doesn't mean a thing.

 

[RD2003]

You're not actually arguing against it though. And tbh, your analysis comes across totally as good victim Russia vs. bad assailant 'the west' so look in a mirror and stop projecting. Psychological need ffs

Tell me why I'm wrong, because just saying it doesn't mean a thing.

I didn't answer in full as I saw little point in repeating what I'd said in the previous posts.

You seem determined to stick to the evil intent narrative, and all but ascribe Russia's mafia capitalism and the current style of Russian nationalism to Putin alone,whereas I described what actually went on, which is well-documented.

If you interpret my view of Russia as it being 'a good victim,' despite everything I've said about the place, I can't help it.

 

[Storm Fox]

If you interpret my view of Russia as it being 'a good victim, despite everything I've said about the place, I can't help it.

Most people on this thread interpret your views as Russia being a victim. So as the majority of people think that's your view, the problem is yours and you being unable to put forward a coherent argument otherwise.

I assume you won't believe this and carry on berating people for not understanding you.

 

[RD2003]

Most people on this thread interpret your views as Russia being a victim. So as the majority of people think that's your view, the problem is yours and you being unable to put forward a coherent argument otherwise.

I assume you won't believe this and carry on berating people for not understanding you.

And the evil madmen dicatator mortally-ill drunkard cunt etc narrative is supposed to be coherent?

And I, who have received insults throughout from potty-mouthed liberals, and liberals who think they're radicals (not that it bothers me), am the one who berates people?

 

[Storm Fox]

And the evil madmen dicatator mortally-ill drunkard cunt etc narrative is supposed to be coherent?

Who invaded another country? Who has been shelling civilians? Who has threatened nuclear war? Who has had political opponents killed? So the covers evil madman dictator cunt. I don't know about the mortally-ill drunkard part.

 

[RD2003]

Who invaded another country? Who has been shelling civilians? Who has threatened nuclear war? Who has had political opponents killed? So the covers evil madman dictator cunt. I don't know about the mortally-ill drunkard part.

Who's saying he hasn't invaded another country? Lots of countries have been invaded by countries with leaders with various different characteristics and qualities, and will be in the future. 'Evil' is hardly the major factor. There is nothing new about targetting civilians.

Maybe power should just be restricted to nice people? Good luck with that.

 

[Storm Fox]

Who's saying he hasn't invaded another country? Lots of countries have been invaded by countries with leaders with various different characteristics and qualities, and will be in the future. 'Evil' is hardly the major factor. There is nothing new about targetting civilians.

Maybe power should just be restricted to nice people? Good luck with that.

So it's alright to bomb civilians because other people do it? Or did I miss something?

 

[RD2003]

So it's alright to bomb civilians because other people do it? Or did I miss something?

Sigh. Yes, you missed something.

 

[Storm Fox]

Sigh. Yes, you missed something.

What?

 

[RD2003]

What?

Jesus, read what people post properly.

I don't really know what to say to people who just because you point out the obvious fact that bombing civilians is nothing new, think you are approving of it.

 

[Storm Fox]

.

 

[mojo pixy]

I didn't answer in full as I saw little point in repeating what I'd said in the previous posts.

I agree. Some development would be helpful.

You seem determined to stick to the evil intent narrative, and all but ascribe Russia's mafia capitalism and the current style of Russian nationalism to Putin alone,

I have never done this, try addressing my actual points maybe

whereas I described what actually went on, which is well-documented.

So have I, and yes it is.

If you interpret my view of Russia as it being 'a good victim,' despite everything I've said about the place, I can't help it.

But this so clearly is your view! It seeps from every post, you keep posting stuff then blaming people for reading what you post. You don't answer simple questions, you keep centering yourself, and you have the temerity to play the victim when people question or challenge you.

Whatever, this is your pile of sick, you're welcome to do what you want with it.

 

[RD2003]

I agree. Some development would be helpful.

I have never done this, try addressing my actual points maybe

So have I, and yes it is.

But this so clearly is your view! It seeps from every post, you keep posting stuff then blaming people for reading what you post. You don't answer simple questions, you keep centering yourself, and you have the temerity to play the victim when people question or challenge you.

Whatever, this is your pile of sick, you're welcome to do what you want with it.

Last Saturday it was existentialist who kept going on about sick. What is it with you liberals and sick?

 

[mojo pixy]

Last Saturday it was existentialist who kept going on about sick. What is it with you liberals and sick?

'Liberal' lol, you love your nice simple labels don't you? Goodies/baddies, 'the west', liberals...

If it looks like sick and smells like sick, what's the point in calling it stew?

This is all you've got, isn't it? Crude bantz and labels. This is why you get banned

 

[RD2003]

'Liberal' lol, you love your nice simple labels don't you? Goodies/baddies, 'the west', liberals...

If it looks like sick and smells like sick, what's the point in calling it stew?

This is all you've got, isn't it? Crude bantz and labels. This is why you get banned

Maybe you can start calling it Sick Saturday?

 

[mojo pixy]

Maybe you can start calling it Sick Saturday?

Maybe I don't care. Maybe your bantz are boring as shit. Maybe you'll get the last word because maybe this is a fucking massive waste of my time. Maybe I'm a slow learner who always gives idiots too many chances to rise above their idiocy. Maybe it's someone else's go now. Maybe not.

 

[RD2003]

Not sure if I've ever heard the phrase 'tamps down' before.

Pentagon spokesperson tamps down concerns over nuclear ‘Armageddon’

John Kirby says Biden’s warning about threat of a nuclear attack from Russia were not based on specific new information

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ming]

I had a bet of $20 on Liverpool vs Arsenal with a UK colleague. I obviously berated him for making a bet in the shadow of nuclear war.

But I'm Tranmere Rovers as I'm from the Wirral.

 

[RD2003]

I had a bet of $20 on Liverpool vs Arsenal with a UK colleague. I obviously berated him for making a bet in the shadow of nuclear war.

But I'm Tranmere Rovers as I'm from the Wirral.

They'd better not go and fucking spoil City's golden period with nuclear war. Cunts.

 

[Ming]

They'd better not go and fucking spoil City's golden period with nuclear war. Cunts.

One has to get ones priorities straight.

 

[maomao]

Not sure if I've ever heard the phrase 'tamps down' before.

Pentagon spokesperson tamps down concerns over nuclear ‘Armageddon’

John Kirby says Biden’s warning about threat of a nuclear attack from Russia were not based on specific new information

www.theguardian.com

It's what you do to coffee grounds before you put them in an espresso machine. It's a very poor analogy as it could be understood as compacting and preparing.

 

[Ming]

It's what you do to coffee grounds before you put them in an espresso machine. It's a very poor analogy as it could be understood as compacting and preparing.

Thing is we are on the edge of a nuclear exchange.

 

[maomao]

Thing is we are on the edge of a nuclear exchange.

Well in order to avoid the few survivors running around grunting at each other like in Threads it's important that we tighten up on language skills now.

 

[bluescreen]

It's what you do to coffee grounds before you put them in an espresso machine. It's a very poor analogy as it could be understood as compacting and preparing.

And it's what you do to pipe tobacco before lighting it.

Unless the writer really meant 'damps down' I don't like the sound of this at all.

 

[Tanya1982]

Not sure if I've ever heard the phrase 'tamps down' before.

Pentagon spokesperson tamps down concerns over nuclear ‘Armageddon’

John Kirby says Biden’s warning about threat of a nuclear attack from Russia were not based on specific new information

www.theguardian.com

Really? I'm sure I've heard it used often enough in terms of acts like putting out (more correctly reducing the intensity of) a fire. I don't think it's that obscure a term.

 

[RD2003]

Reall? I've heard it used often enough in terms of putting out a fire.

Don't know may fire fighters, and most people I do know have central heating.