• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context.

    Do you even support anything?

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

          • PandaBearGreen [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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.

              • PandaBearGreen [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression.