So would you say it is just like how the jewish barbarians are taking land in the middle East, or the black barbarians are shooting and robbing each other for personal gain in cities in the USA?
There's many differences between russian barbarians, and Israeli forces:
- Israel has a rich history of Palestinian attacks with many Jewish *civilian* casualties, whereas the russian aggression is unprovoked.
- Israeli forces are better prepared and better treated by its country than the russian cannon fodder with e.g. outdated food rations or poorly armored vehicles, though I don't know if that's what bamboozled meant as well.
- I could be wrong, but while not being emotionally prejudiced towards/against Palestine, Israel, Russia and Ukraine prior to the conflicts, in a heuristic sense, just estimating the severity of breaking human rights, russian forces seem to have far worse standards than Israeli forces. Likewise with Ukraine vs Palestine. In case of Ukrainians we see refugees and children hiding in bunkers and being dragged out of them by russian forces. In case of Palestine...
You are splitting hairs and focusing on the wrong thing.
Even if everything you say is true, it is inherently wrong as well as unproductive to refer to ethnic/religious groups as "barbarians" based on the actions of some portion of that groups behaviour. It essentialises the group even though there are countless Russians who dont support this behaviour and therefore aren't "barbarians".
Behaviour can certainly be barbaric and referred to as such (I would have had no problem if the original comment said "the invasion of the Ukraine by Russians is barbaric" as an example), but referring to entire nations/ethnic groups/religions as barbarians based on a portion of that group's behaviour is deeply dehumanising and one of the most toxic ways to engage in these sorts of discussions with very negative outcomes for both sides by denying other people their humanity.
Can you name a single time in history ever where framing conflict in such a manner has led to anything positive? Because I certainly can't and there are PLENTY of examples of it being done. However much some people may relish the opportunity to finally have an "enemy" they can dehumanise and hate, it is always ethically wrong as well as being counter-productive to do so no matter how good it might feel to some people.
Splitting hairs - absolutely not, provoked and unprovoked aggression is a very significant difference.
Focusing on the wrong thing - it seems so. Bamboozled used the word "barbaric" to precise which russians he describes. He didn't use the word to insult all Russians. Have you ever heard the term "Nazi Germany"? Do you think, that people using this term intend to insult Germany? I find that ridiculous in a semantic way, that's just not how words work. Look at 2nd Bamboozled's comment and at Michaelmrose comment.
> (I would have had no problem if the original comment said "the invasion of the Ukraine by Russians is barbaric" as an example)
So you have no problem with what Bamboozled meant, only with how he phrased it. That's splitting hairs.
So then what is wrong with me saying "barbaric Israelis" taking land in the West bank or "barbaric blacks" shooting each other in cities? There is no difference here, I never said I was describing all Israelis or black either, just the ones who engage in this behaviour.
What bamboozled said was:
> If there’s a lot of snow and temps at the ground are above zero, it’s a worse situation for the Russian barbarians.
"Scroll up and you can see for yourself" my previous comment where I argued the difference.
I honestly don't know if Israeli forces should be called barbaric. It is a narration common enough that it motivated me to investigate - where I quickly discovered many facts speaking in favor of the Israel. Again, I don't support what Israel is doing, but the initial fire of my outrage got quickly quenched by facts. As soon as it turned out to be quite an intricate conflict, I humbly switched my interests on the basis of being too stupid to judge either side.
Meanwhile in case of russian invasion, I just see nothing in defense of the invader. The moral aspect of the conflict is ridiculously asymmetric - like in a Disney movie. On one side there's a small country, with its president risking life in Kiev, on another a Goliath country run by a coward hiding in a bunker, shamelessly lying to his citizens, with the world almost unanimously condemning his war crimes.
So, to sum it up, without defending Israeli forces in Palestine, I see a huge difference between them and the russian barbarism in Ukraine. I don't know if the former is barbaric, but the latter is as barbaric as it gets.
Well I was arguing against the use of the phrase "russian barbarians". If we agree that was wrong, then we agree here.
It does sadden me to see how little has been learnt from post-9/11 where muslims or even people wearing turbans were subject to increased demonisation and abuse while everyone applauded.
Individuals should not be targetted and demonising groups based on ethnicity with comments of "Russian barbarians" is a big way this type of thing starts.
Anyway, plenty of people seem hellbent on reserving their "right" to demonise whole ethnic groups when the opportunity arises so going to leave it here. Thank you for the discussion in any case although the outcome very much saddens me.
I feel like I'm talking with a wall. No, we don't agree, we disagree. I've put some effort to formulate specific arguments and I didn't see a response to them.
To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once:
> The individual voice does matter if it's expressed by a large enough group
> To say that a plural form describes individuals is outright ridiculous and reminds me of a comment I've seen on Reddit once:
So then what is your problem with the term "Israeli Barbarians" or would it be better if I used the phrase "Israeli Occupiers"? And I presume you also have no issue with "Black savages" or "Black barbarians"? And I'm guessing you also have no problem with "Muslim barbarians" either?
Because remember, it is "ridiculous" to say the plural form describes individuals. So there is no coherent logical standard that makes "Russian barbarians" okay but not those other examples. In these types of cases you need to think about what the norm you are establishing will mean when it is turned against you, and it won't be pretty.
You are in essence saying that if Russians conquer the whole of Ukraine and put all Ukrainians in a few pockets, Russians are the rightful owners of the place and Ukrainian fighting back after the fact is unprovoked aggression, if enough decades pass without Russia losing control of Ukraine?
Am I really saying that? That's surely not what I meant, but it's interesting to know my words could be understood in such a dramatically different way to my intentions.
Sorry for the confusion, maybe I even answered to the wrong comment? I was answering to a comment that somehow justified the situation in Israel while at the same time saying Russian invasion is unacceptable. If it was not your comment and you did not make these claims (too lazy to check further up now) move on.
I just made a direct analogy point to point between Israel's actions and Russia's actions. I do not really believe they can be viewed in a different light, in particular Israel in a more favorable light, which I believe is something you (whoever I wanted to answer to) deduced in your comment. You can put one on one points between the Russian invasion and the Israeli colonization of Palestine, and the only real difference is that in Israel the victims were not white people.
I know some people who say "Jews are doing exactly the same thing in Palestine as Hitler did". I find it outright ridiculous. In general if someone compares war conflicts "one on one", he just shows off how little he knows about those conflicts - every war conflict is too complex to be called exactly the same as any other. It's like saying Venus is Earth. Yea, to someone with almost exactly zero knowledge on astronomy.
What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is very close to what Hitler did to Jews. The only difference is that they don't kill civilians in camps - camps do exist, the civilians are just killed through normal military operations. It is ironic that Jews, who suffered so much from the fascist regime, ended up straight showing up from all over the world to Palestine and claiming it as theirs, pushing most of the existing population out of the land and confining the others in specified areas - oh, and aggression towards the colonizers? It's called terrorism now, won't you know. And since some decades have passed, let bygones be bygones - the state of Israel has gained legitimacy through holding the land long enough.
Let's not forget Israel still bombs civilians and children.
How is THAT more justifiable than what Russia is doing, I wonder.
Invade foreign land you have no business invading? Check.
Drive much of the population away in the process? Check.
Confine the invaded populace in specified areas based on race? Russians have not done that yet in Ukraine, I acknowledge that. The first difference in the two conflicts that matters.
Kill whoever resists? Check.
Routinely bomb civilians? Check.
Does any other detail matter to not condemn the one and condemn the other? What could Russia learn from the Israeli case to make its invasion and occupation equally justifiable?
