Ben & Jerry's cofounder Ben Cohen has donated over $1 million to an organisation aimed at ending military support for Ukraine

[Addie]

Lmao. Giving strong "Antifa is just as bad as fascists" vibes, dude. The "horseshoe theory" is centrist bullshit that simplifies political issues to a ridiculous point. It is also widely seen as bullshit by any reputable academic.

Not going to comment on the central issue at hand because, frankly, I just haven't read enough about specific war developments to talk about what's realistic and what is not, but people (not just you!) using this as an opportunity to say shit like "actually the far-left is just as bad as the far-right" is truly embarrassing for a supposedly progressive forum.

Click to shrink...

Maybe you should read some of the posts you're defending, after saying you've done absolutely no research on this conflict and don't even understand enough to have a qualified opinion, before you jump to their defense.

And maybe, just maybe, leftists aren't always correct. And yes, some of them are as bad as the far-right when it comes to certain takes!

Your post is exactly why a large number of people don't take your cohort seriously, even if they'd agree with a lot of policy aims in a vacuum.

Remember: it's literally free not to post your opinion, especially when you admit you don't understand the topic.

 

[deftones r cool]

Aren't they like super progressive?
Must be a tankie then.

Well then, this answers my question.

Click to shrink...

Whats a tankie?

 

[ADS]

It's absolutely hilarious to me, that for maybe the second time since World War II, the US is unequivocally on the right side of a conflict, there's a small group of leftists who are so committed to their 'America bad' centric view of the world, that they can't snap out of it.

If you abhor conflict, then the quickest way fo this conflict to end is to give Ukraine enough firepower they can stop the invasion of their country, and maybe as a treat, Putin "resigns for heath reasons."

Click to shrink...

Seriously. Shit like this:

It wasn't until HIMARS that Russia knocked out the power infrastructure. They could have done this from the beginning, but they wanted Ukraine intact.
Would Russia still have done that if not for the HIMARs?

Click to shrink...

is just embarassing. Someone so wrapped up in trying to blame the US they twist themselves into knots to achieve it. Not only that, but they completely ignore the will of the Ukrainian people and the murder and rape that has taken place and will get much worse the further Russia is enabled.

 

[Addie]

Seriously. Shit like this:



is just embarassing. Someone so wrapped up in trying to blame the US they twist themselves into knots to achieve it. Not only that, but they completely ignore the will of the Ukrainian people and the murder and rape that has taken place and will get much worse the further Russia is enabled.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to defend Tukarrs here. They are factually incorrect but engaging in good faith, and they have done enough initial research to advance an argument, even if it's underpinned by factual error. Provided they revise their opinion after smarter folks than me, like Mentalist, provided a better gouge, I consider this conversation -- and interesting conversation at that. I look forward to seeing where it's going.

It's the other tankies in the thread that are hamfistedly embarrassing.

Or maybe it's because of the actual tankies that I'm seeing a difference.

 

[NetMapel]

I imagine that prior to arriving at a diplomatic solution, each side is trying to gain the "stronger hand" or "advantage" so the negotiation result will be more favourable for their side. So I think the folks calling for a diplomatic solution (one that favor Ukraine) should logically support Ukraine's effort to strengthen its hand before entering any possible future negotiations.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Seriously. Shit like this:



is just embarassing. Someone so wrapped up in trying to blame the US they twist themselves into knots to achieve it. Not only that, but they completely ignore the will of the Ukrainian people and the murder and rape that has taken place and will get much worse the further Russia is enabled.

Click to shrink...

There's so many people who frankly, haven't had their foreign policy grow beyond the first anti-American argument they read in 9th grade or whatever. There are people making some better arguments here, but frankly, most of the people who were making the really terrible arguments forum sucided themselves in the early days of the war.

Like, there's plenty to disagree w/ Biden on foreign policy, but he's largely ended the drone war, got out of Afghanistan, and is actually doing diplomacy, but I still see the same dumb arguments trotted out. The reality is Biden is the most dovish POTUS of anybody on this forum's lifetitme. There's still be plenty to be upset about, but focus on that instead of Ukraine, or acting like we're still droning people on the regular, in any sort of numbers close to Obama or Trump.

 

[Deleted member 11637]

Lmao. Giving strong "Antifa is just as bad as fascists" vibes, dude. The "horseshoe theory" is centrist bullshit that simplifies political issues to a ridiculous point. It is also widely seen as bullshit by any reputable academic.

Not going to comment on the central issue at hand because, frankly, I just haven't read enough about specific war developments to talk about what's realistic and what is not, but people (not just you!) using this as an opportunity to say shit like "actually the far-left is just as bad as the far-right" is truly embarrassing for a supposedly progressive forum.

Click to shrink...

"We want the best for everyone" is the most charitable branding of socialism, but it's catastrophic face-plants like the far left's response to the Ukraine war -- and their failure to recognize it even as a tactical error -- that dooms them to remaining an unserious, untrustworthy permanent fringe movement.

Be better, or at least be smarter.

 

[Addie]

I imagine that prior to arriving at a diplomatic solution, each side is trying to gain the "stronger hand" or "advantage" so the negotiation result will be more favourable for their side. So I think the folks calling for a diplomatic solution (one that favor Ukraine) should logically support what what Ukraine is trying to do to strengthen its hand before entering any possible future negotiations.

Click to shrink...

There are continuous efforts at a diplomatic solution, whether a solution to resolve the entire conflict or to manage pieces of it.

I know this to be factually true.

The problem is that Putin will not accept it, and without a mechanism to enforce a negotiated peace and spare Ukraine from future violence, there's a vanishingly small chance at securing one.

The people who say "we should try diplomacy instead of supporting war" are so manifestly uninformed and lack any kind of ability to critically think about warfare, whether ancient or modern, that they're honestly not worth engaging with until they learn something about warfare and conflict.

 

[Dekuman]

Whats a tankie?

Click to shrink...

Tankie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jersey_Tom]

The only course of action that doesn't lead to further Russian aggression against its neighbors is continued Western support until Russia capitulates and withdraws from occupied territories in Ukraine. What Tankies conveniently don't recall is that this is not the first military invasion that Russia has launched against its smaller neighbors. Or did Chechnya and Georgia slip your mind?

Click to shrink...

Please tell me what terms you think Russia would accept that won't involve genocide. Like at a minimum they'll insist they keep the territory they're already occupying and actively committing genocide in, and likely also make demands about the demilitirization of Ukraine (allowing it to be an easy mark when they inevitably start the conflict up again after rebuilding their forces). Those are the bare minimum demands Russia is going to make. Because Putin's already made it clear he doesn't care how much Russians have to die to get what he wants (which again, is explicitly the eradication of Ukraine, they haven't been hiding this)

Click to shrink...

I mean frankly guys at the end of the day the basis of this thread is people bringing up that Ben Cohen had the ABSOLUTE FUCKING NERVE to suggest that the US be more active in leading a diplomatic solution.

How you or I think things are gonna go down is kinda irrelevant to the point I've originally made which is pointing out the fervor of which people are just drive-by posting "lol fucking tankie scum" about a dude who has spent his entire life advocating and using his own money to support causes for a lot of the same things most on this board would say we are deeply concerned with. And the one SLIGHT divergence he has with your opinions and suddenly the dude might as well have ordered the invasion of Ukraine personally.

Like it's absolutely wild to me how people here go from 0 to 60 on people refusing to give them the benefit of any sort of doubt. Even in mentioning that they may think he's naive for suggesting that it's not that his heart is in the right place, it's that he's actively calling for the extinction of Ukrainians which is frankly an insane jump considering this dude's resume.

Yeah, of course everyone wants diplomacy.

Click to shrink...

See, ya say that and yet we have an entire thread where one guy suggests diplomacy and suddenly everyone here wants to drop their own version of "UM ACHTUALLY…" while also forgetting about the man they're talking about and acting like this is the kind of dude who UNEQUIVOCALLY openly walks around supporting genocides and apartheid states like he's a guest speaker at CPAC and also has direct influence over the direction of US foreign policy where the DoD is hanging on his every word.

Hell I wouldn't have posted at all in this thread if people were just simply being critical or disagreeing on his stance. But the amount of vitriol over a suggestion of diplomacy to the extent that people are feverishly typing "FUCK YOU, TANKIE" to the dude who among other things has in the past been a leader speaking out against the Citizen's United decision, actively participated in protests against police brutality, spoke out against Israel's treatment of Palestinians as a prominent Jewish man in America and has funded the Urban Displacement Project amongst a whole host of other worthy progressive causes. But this one thing makes people talk about this dude like he's legit the anti-Christ.

The person you're so hellbent on defending (naive ice cream man) presents it as an either or. Either give weapons or focus on diplomacy. Never mind the fact that if we stop giving weapons then Ukraine will be steamrolled which certainly doesn't lend itself to a very favorable diplomatic solution for the Ukrainians.

Click to shrink...

Like this. "Naive ice cream man." Sure, dude. I hope you don't catch a chill from atop that ivory tower you've built for yourself where any pleb like Ben Cohen who doesn't ascribe to your exact opinions on every issue could only hope to be the beacon of morality you clearly are to deign such a foolish mortal as nothing more than the "naive ice cream man." Let us all hope to be as enlightened as you one day.

 

[Addie]

Like this. "Naive ice cream man." Sure, dude. I hope you don't catch a chill from atop that ivory tower you've built for yourself where any pleb like Ben Cohen who doesn't ascribe to your exact opinions on every issue could only hope to be the beacon of morality you clearly are to deign such a foolish mortal as nothing more than the "naive ice cream man." Let us all hope to be as enlightened as you one day.

Click to shrink...

This is resonating with me.

I think it's a fair assessment to conclude that Ben Cohen has well-meaning views, or at least wants an idyllic outcome, but he doesn't have the lived experiences to develop a nuanced comment on this.

Otherwise stated, it's logically inconsistent to call him "naive ice cream man" and simultaneously expect him to have expertise on par with, I don't know, Admiral Jim Stavridis.

While I'll always say that "shutting up is free," because that's objectively true, and I'll add that those with disproportionate reach -- like Ben Cohen -- have a responsibility when using their voice... yeah, at the end of the day, he's a well-meaning ice cream guy.

All that being said, I think it's OK to attack the take itself while remaining realistic about the person espousing it. And I would simultaneously hope that someone like Cohen, who certainly does mean well, would understand that someone with his voice and reach should be careful about amplifying views not dissimilar to RT's.

 

[Deleted member 11637]

This is resonating with me.

I think it's a fair assessment to conclude that Ben Cohen has well-meaning views, or at least wants an idyllic outcome, but he doesn't have the lived experiences to develop a nuanced comment on this.

Otherwise stated, it's logically inconsistent to call him "naive ice cream man" and simultaneously expect him to have expertise on par with, I don't know, Admiral Jim Stavridis.

While I'll always say that "shutting up is free," because that's objectively true, and I'll add that those with disproportionate reach -- like Ben Cohen -- have a responsibility when using their voice... yeah, at the end of the day, he's a well-meaning ice cream guy.

All that being said, I think it's OK to attack the take itself while remaining realistic about the person espousing it.

Click to shrink...

Please. He's a politically conscious multi-millionaire who's smart enough to know better.

 

[Alucrid]

I mean frankly guys at the end of the day the basis of this thread is people bringing up that Ben Cohen had the ABSOLUTE FUCKING NERVE to suggest that the US be more active in leading a diplomatic solution.

How you or I think things are gonna go down is kinda irrelevant to the point I've originally made which is pointing out the fervor of which people are just drive-by posting "lol fucking tankie scum" about a dude who has spent his entire life advocating and using his own money to support causes for a lot of the same things most on this board would say we are deeply concerned with. And the one SLIGHT divergence he has with your opinions and suddenly the dude might as well have ordered the invasion of Ukraine personally.

Like it's absolutely wild to me how people here go from 0 to 60 on people refusing to give them the benefit of any sort of doubt. Even in mentioning that they may think he's naive for suggesting that it's not that his heart is in the right place, it's that he's actively calling for the extinction of Ukrainians which is frankly an insane jump considering this dude's resume.



See, ya say that and yet we have an entire thread where one guy suggests diplomacy and suddenly everyone here wants to drop their own version of "UM ACHTUALLY…" while also forgetting about the man they're talking about and acting like this is the kind of dude who UNEQUIVOCALLY openly walks around supporting genocides and apartheid states like he's a guest speaker at CPAC and also has direct influence over the direction of US foreign policy where the DoD is hanging on his every word.

Hell I wouldn't have posted at all in this thread if people were just simply being critical or disagreeing on his stance. But the amount of vitriol over a suggestion of diplomacy to the extent that people are feverishly typing "FUCK YOU, TANKIE" to the dude who among other things has in the past been a leader speaking out against the Citizen's United decision, actively participated in protests against police brutality, spoke out against Israel's treatment of Palestinians as a prominent Jewish man in America and has funded the Urban Displacement Project amongst a whole host of other worthy progressive causes. But this one thing makes people talk about this dude like he's legit the anti-Christ.



Like this. "Naive ice cream man." Sure, dude. I hope you don't catch a chill from atop that ivory tower you've built for yourself where any pleb like Ben Cohen who doesn't ascribe to your exact opinions on every issue could only hope to be the beacon of morality you clearly are to deign such a foolish mortal as nothing more than the "naive ice cream man." Let us all hope to be as enlightened as you one day.

Click to shrink...

i suppose this take works if you focus on the us should "use its power to negotiate an end to the war" part and conveniently forget about the "not...supplying more weapons" part

 

[ADS]

I mean frankly guys at the end of the day the basis of this thread is people bringing up that Ben Cohen had the ABSOLUTE FUCKING NERVE to suggest that the US be more active in leading a diplomatic solution.

Click to shrink...

Stop your strawmanning. That's not what people are complaining about. It's a long standing pattern including giving an award to Aaron Maté.

 

[Addie]

Please. He's a multi-millionaire who's smart enough to know better.

Click to shrink...

That could certainly be true too. See my edit -- I have the unfortunate habit of always editing after posting. I believe he has the responsibility to know better, and if he's as well-meaning as he appears to be, he should pivot his approach going forward.

And if he doesn't?

Then he's frankly not that well-meaning after all.

 

[Deleted member 11637]

That could certainly be true too. See my edit -- I have the unfortunate habit of always editing after posting. I believe he has the responsibility to know better, and if he's as well-meaning as he appears to be, he should pivot his approach going forward.

Click to shrink...

I edited my post as you were responding to me, so fair play :)

 

[kmfdmpig]

Like this. "Naive ice cream man." Sure, dude. I hope you don't catch a chill from atop that ivory tower you've built for yourself where any pleb like Ben Cohen who doesn't ascribe to your exact opinions on every issue could only hope to be the beacon of morality you clearly are to deign such a foolish mortal as nothing more than the "naive ice cream man." Let us all hope to be as enlightened as you one day.

Click to shrink...

Yes, naive. Not evil or amoral. Naive. His take here is absolutely naive. Does that mean he's naive about everything? Nope, he's been incredibly successful in life and has been on the right side of most issues, so he's certainly got redeeming qualities. None of them are the focus of this thread, however. When it comes to this issue calling him naive is as generous as one can be as the alternative is that he's a massive piece of shit willing to condemn a nation of 42 million to subjugation and genocide. I don't think that's what he's thinking, so naive seems like a reasonable description of him in the context of the situation in Ukraine.

 

[NetMapel]

There are continuous efforts at a diplomatic solution, whether a solution to resolve the entire conflict or to manage pieces of it.

I know this to be factually true.

The problem is that Putin will not accept it, and without a mechanism to enforce a negotiated peace and spare Ukraine from future violence, there's a vanishingly small chance at securing one.

The people who say "we should try diplomacy instead of supporting war" are so manifestly uninformed and lack any kind of ability to critically think about warfare, whether ancient or modern, that they're honestly not worth engaging with until they learn something about warfare and conflict.

Click to shrink...

Sure yeah I'm just saying regardless of whether Ukraine is able to reach a military or a diplomatic solution, unfortunately what they need now is military assistance in order to strengthen their position to achieve their goal. If it must be a military solution (because Putin won't negotiate or whatever), then helping Ukraine help them achieve that. If it ends up being a diplomatic solution, then helping Ukraine to allow them to be in the best position to negotiate is also right. So right now this is where we are at before we arrive at any one of the above solutions.

 

[Jersey_Tom]

All that being said, I think it's OK to attack the take itself while remaining realistic about the person espousing it. And I would simultaneously hope that someone like Cohen, who certainly does mean well, would understand that someone with his voice and reach should be careful about amplifying views not dissimilar to RT's.

Click to shrink...

Straight up I'm certainly not coming at this where I'm saying that everyone has to like Cohen's viewpoint here in the quick 10-second answer he gave on this. And it's not lost on me that he supports The Grayzone either.

Neither of those two things though to me are indicative on the entirety of his character or overshadows the resume he has otherwise.

Like as I said I don't even necessarily agree with his assertion on the grounds that I don't see a realistic means of it even happening. I freely admit I don't know what the diplomatic solution is but I think it's just as unrealistic as what others have suggested in drive-by posts of "1991 borders" or the complete and unconditional surrender of Russia because the US was infinitely bankrolling Ukrainian efforts and China/Iran/etc. decided to punt on this completely.

 

[El Bombastico]

This is resonating with me.

I think it's a fair assessment to conclude that Ben Cohen has well-meaning views, or at least wants an idyllic outcome, but he doesn't have the lived experiences to develop a nuanced comment on this.

Otherwise stated, it's logically inconsistent to call him "naive ice cream man" and simultaneously expect him to have expertise on par with, I don't know, Admiral Jim Stavridis.

While I'll always say that "shutting up is free," because that's objectively true, and I'll add that those with disproportionate reach -- like Ben Cohen -- have a responsibility when using their voice... yeah, at the end of the day, he's a well-meaning ice cream guy.

All that being said, I think it's OK to attack the take itself while remaining realistic about the person espousing it. And I would simultaneously hope that someone like Cohen, who certainly does mean well, would understand that someone with his voice and reach should be careful about amplifying views not dissimilar to RT's.

Click to shrink...

That's the biggest problem I have with online leftists, like you said, in the end, they do genuinely mean well. They're not actively malicious out of petty spite and cruelty like the alt-right They do sincerely believe that it would be better for everyone is the US stopped giving Ukraine aid/or they sued for peace.

So many leftist online have this profoundly naive view of the world that, I'm sorry, clearly comes from a place of peek privilege. And given that many online leftiests are white and well-off like Naive Ice Cream Man, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

 

[cvbas]

Maybe you should read some of the posts you're defending, after saying you've done absolutely no research on this conflict and don't even understand enough to have a qualified opinion, before you jump to their defense.

And maybe, just maybe, leftists aren't always correct. And yes, some of them are as bad as the far-right when it comes to certain takes!

Your post is exactly why a large number of people don't take your cohort seriously, even if they'd agree with a lot of policy aims in a vacuum.

Remember: it's literally free not to post your opinion, especially when you admit you don't understand the topic.

Click to shrink...

I mean, I made it quite clear I'm talking specifically about the horseshoe theory -- something I know enough about to confidently classify as centrist bullshit.

I don't feel like I'm qualified enough to talk about the merits and shortcomings of specific solutions proposed by both sides in this very thread (and Ben Cohen), so -- like you said -- I didn't comment on them! But it's not because you disagree with a portion of the left when it comes to this specific issue that it becomes fine or reasonable to be like "eh, this bullshit centrist theory that delegitimizes the fights of the left is correct, actually"

 

[Gorger]

Lmao. Giving strong "Antifa is just as bad as fascists" vibes, dude. The "horseshoe theory" is centrist bullshit that simplifies political issues to a ridiculous point. It is also widely seen as bullshit by any reputable academic.

Not going to comment on the central issue at hand because, frankly, I just haven't read enough about specific war developments to talk about what's realistic and what is not, but people (not just you!) using this as an opportunity to say shit like "actually the far-left is just as bad as the far-right" is truly embarrassing for a supposedly progressive forum.

Click to shrink...

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I even mention antifa or the far-left? Are you saying the far-left as a whole are proponents of stopping military aid to Ukraine and having Russia roll over them so they can complete their genocide, cause that's not true. In reality it's a fractional minority movement within the left, who ignorantly uses mostly far-right talking points (Like Trump saying: "Are we so innocent?" When excusing what Putin is doing.) to appease a genocidal dictator with vague whataboutism, and completely ignoring the consequences of what would happen if we let authoritarian states have their way conquering smaller nations with no consequences, and that allowing for such a precedent would only lead to more war and calamity down the line. The only thing embarassing in here is this thread, and before you spout what ERA is 'supposed to be' I'd recommend you to take a peek at the Russian invasion thread, which is easily one of the best threads on this forum, and one I have pretty much followed every single day since the start of the invasion, cause you would quickly realize ERA is one of the most pro-Ukraine supporting communities I've seen, and they don't usually mince words with bullshit like this even if it's coming from the right or the left.

 

[Addie]

I mean, I made it quite clear I'm talking specifically about the horseshoe theory -- something I know enough about to confidently classify as centrist bullshit.

I don't feel like I'm qualified enough to talk about the merits and shortcomings of specific solutions proposed by both sides in this very thread (and Ben Cohen), so -- like you said -- I didn't comment on them! But it's not because you disagree with a portion of the left when it comes to this specific issue that it becomes fine or reasonable to be like "eh, this bullshit centrist theory that delegitimizes the fights of the left is correct, actually"

Click to shrink...

I appreciate the reply! And I mean this in with all sincerity and seriousness: why don't you make a thread on horseshoe theory?

It comes up often enough as a subtopic in several other threads that it's worth discussing in a critical, comprehensive fashion. I'd suggest using this one, but I think it might fairly be attributed as a thread derail.

At the very least, I often find that disagreements stem from a lack of agreement on definitions. For instance, I'd wager that you and I mean different things when we use the term "horseshoe theory," and I'll readily concede that I don't know if there's an accepted and consensus academic term. Rather, when I use it, I'm colloquially referring to the concept of the far left and far right having not dissimilar views on a given subject, which usually pertains to foreign policy (in other words, if a leftist and a Proud Boy both like pizza, that's not horseshoe theory).

No obligation. Just an invitation. For my part, I often find that I'm useful as the token liberal-not-leftist centrist who's not afraid to ask dumb questions that stem from my own ignorance.

 

[El Bombastico]

I mean, I made it quite clear I'm talking specifically about the horseshoe theory -- something I know enough about to confidently classify as centrist bullshit.

Click to shrink...

You clearly don't if you think only centrists use that term.

 

[Kerwop]

Like this. "Naive ice cream man." Sure, dude. I hope you don't catch a chill from atop that ivory tower you've built for yourself where any pleb like Ben Cohen who doesn't ascribe to your exact opinions on every issue could only hope to be the beacon of morality you clearly are to deign such a foolish mortal as nothing more than the "naive ice cream man." Let us all hope to be as enlightened as you one day.

Click to shrink...

You make it sound like genocide/ethnic cleansing is just another issue with this Ivory Tower accusation.

Ukrainian children are being kidnapped to Russia to turn them into good Russians. Residential buildings are bombed and cities leveled to the ground. Ethnic Russians replace the former Ukrainian occupants. This is genocide. A millionaire should have more than enough resources to educate themselves on what is happening before spending millions to persuade people to stop supporting Ukraine.

Genocide is one of the few situations where I hoped we would all find agreement, but apparently we want to defend the naive ice cream man. Millions that could have gone to a million better causes, but instead he spends it to the benefit of Russian imperialism.

 

[Jersey_Tom]

You make it sound like genocide/ethnic cleansing is just another issue with this Ivory Tower accusation.

Ukrainian children are being kidnapped to Russia to turn them into good Russians. Residential buildings are bombed and cities leveled to the ground. Ethnic Russians replace the former Ukrainian occupants. This is genocide. A millionaire should have more than enough resources to educate themselves on what is happening before spending millions to persuade people to stop supporting Ukraine.

Genocide is one of the few situations where I hoped we would all find agreement, but apparently we want to defend the naive ice cream man. Millions that could have gone to a million better causes, but instead he spends it to the benefit of Russian imperialism.

Click to shrink...

Nothing in Cohen's comments doubts any of that happening so I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

A dude literally suggests coming to a cease fire and suddenly he's in support of ethnic cleansing and kidnapping.

The same dude who's used his own relation to his business to call for boycotting a regime in Israel from doing the same as well as ending qualified immunity for police.

That dude from suggesting a diplomatic solution clearly meant by that suggestion that he was pro-murdering all Ukrainians.

Got it. What an absolute monster.

 

[Avitus]

Nothing in Cohen's comments doubts any of that happening so I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

A dude literally suggests coming to a cease fire and suddenly he's in support of ethnic cleansing and kidnapping.

Click to shrink...

That's what's happening in the currently occupied territories, so you are correct.

 

[kmfdmpig]

Nothing in Cohen's comments doubts any of that happening so I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

A dude literally suggests coming to a cease fire and suddenly he's in support of ethnic cleansing and kidnapping.

The same dude who's used his own relation to his business to call for boycotting a regime in Israel from doing the same as well as ending qualified immunity for police.

That dude from suggesting a diplomatic solution clearly meant by that suggestion that he was pro-murdering all Ukrainians.

Got it. What an absolute monster.

Click to shrink...

No one is against diplomacy. He's saying we should withhold military aid to Ukraine and instead focus on diplomacy. Doing that frees the Russians to commit genocide.
"I think the U.S. should use its power to negotiate an end to the war, not prolong the death and destruction by supplying more weapons."
The weapons are helping to keep Ukraine safe from an invading force of war criminals and, in the case of Wagner, conventional criminals. No aid and hoping for the best (ie diplomacy with no reason to believe it would work) is fantasy land bullshit, in other words naive.

 

[Kerwop]

Nothing in Cohen's comments doubts any of that happening so I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

A dude literally suggests coming to a cease fire and suddenly he's in support of ethnic cleansing and kidnapping.

The same dude who's used his own relation to his business to call for boycotting a regime in Israel from doing the same as well as ending qualified immunity for police.

That dude from suggesting a diplomatic solution clearly meant by that suggestion that he was pro-murdering all Ukrainians.

Got it. What an absolute monster.

Click to shrink...

Given the current situation on the front lines, can you explain the cease fire at this point that wouldn't benefit Russia's ethnic cleansing? What would it look like?What do you think Ukrainians would think about this cease fire?

Someone who boycotts the regime in Israel and isn't similarly tough on Russia is exactly what frustrates me. Someone who only cares about US imperialism and not imperialism in general.

 

[Gorger]

You clearly don't if you think only centrists use that term.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I mentioned the horseshoe theory earlier more out of frustration of those fringe movements within the left who keeps looking the other way and suddenly not caring anymore about blatant examples of genocidal imperialism happening right before our eyes just because it's not the west or the US being the perpetrators. It's gross hypocrisy, and it deserves being called out on.

 

[Jersey_Tom]

That's what's happening in the currently occupied territories, so you are correct.

Click to shrink...

So is your assessment that the morally correct thing to do would be for Cohen instead to demand US boots on the ground? I mean if he directly wants to help Ukrainians to meet your standards here then the US is just as guilty currently of allowing all this genocide to happen and we're not literally throwing everything we have at Russia, including the full unadulterated might of the US military.

See this is another thing I have a hard time parsing with people. Cohen let slip that he gets more excited over the idea of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians than a bowl of Cherry Garcia because he thinks the US could be more diplomatic, despite his resume.

Meanwhile, the most funded military in the world with over one million active duty soldiers ready to roll at any time not even counting reserves stands back and just wages a proxy war over what you and others are suggesting is a morally imperative mission.

And you know what? I'm going to agree with you. It is morally correct that we intervene. But ya'know it's funny that as morally righteous this war is on the side of the Ukrainians the US can't bring itself to actively engage with boots on the ground and institute the no-fly zone. Unlike Cohen, they directly have the ability to stop all the things you're criticizing Cohen for apparently ignoring, or at worst is actively in favor of. And yet Biden/Austin/Milley/Blinken/etc. are directly allowing it to continue because we're currently only engaging in what can be I think accurately described as a half-measure to meet that challenge. Everyday the US isn't running sorties and reinforcing Ukrainian troops on the ground is another day the US is also just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away on its own at some point while all those atrocities are happening.

By that standard, the US having the military might to overwhelmingly meet the Russian challenge right this very moment and yet choosing to send care packages and positive vibes to the Ukrainian military instead makes them much more culpable to those atrocities than a guy like Cohen.

 

[PBalfredo]

So is your assessment that the morally correct thing to do would be for Cohen instead to demand US boots on the ground?

Click to shrink...

Are you unable to engage without constructing straw men?

 

[El Bombastico]

Yeah, I mentioned the horseshoe theory earlier more out of frustration of those fringe movements within the left who keeps looking the other way and suddenly not caring anymore about blatant examples of genocidal imperialism happening right before our eyes just because it's not the west or the US being the perpetrators. It's gross hypocrisy, and it deserves being called out on.

Click to shrink...

Its not just hypocrisy, its because at the end of the day, both the MAGA chuds and the online leftists are calling for the US to stop aiding Ukraine. Yes, their reasons for it are completely different.

But guess what? That doesn't MATTER.

Its doesn't matter how well-intentioned and noble your goals are, or how petty and evil the right's are, when the end result would be exactly the same; Ukraine gets fucked over.

That's why the horseshoe theory applies right now; both the Alt-Right and a certain sect of online leftists want the exact same thing when it comes to Ukraine.

Are you unable to engage without constructing straw men?

Click to shrink...

I've yet to many any online leftist who can, same with whataboutisms.

 

[Gorger]

So is your assessment that the morally correct thing to do would be for Cohen instead to demand US boots on the ground? I mean if he directly wants to help Ukrainians to meet your standards here then the US is just as guilty currently of allowing all this genocide to happen and we're not literally throwing everything we have at Russia, including the full unadulterated might of the US military.

See this is another thing I have a hard time parsing with people. Cohen let slip that he gets more excited over the idea of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians than a bowl of Cherry Garcia because he thinks the US could be more diplomatic, despite his resume.

Meanwhile, the most funded military in the world with over one million active duty soldiers ready to roll at any time not even counting reserves stands back and just wages a proxy war over what you and others are suggesting is a morally imperative mission.

And you know what? I'm going to agree with you. It is morally correct that we intervene. But ya'know it's funny that as morally righteous this war is on the side of the Ukrainians the US can't bring itself to actively engage with boots on the ground and institute the no-fly zone. Unlike Cohen, they directly have the ability to stop all the things you're criticizing Cohen for apparently ignoring, or at worst is actively in favor of. And yet Biden/Austin/Milley/Blinken/etc. are directly allowing it to continue because we're currently only engaging in what can be I think accurately described as a half-measure to meet that challenge. Everyday the US isn't running sorties and reinforcing Ukrainian troops on the ground is another day the US is also just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away on its own at some point while all those atrocities are happening.

By that standard, the US having the military might to overwhelmingly meet the Russian challenge right this very moment and yet choosing to send care packages and positive vibes to the Ukrainian military instead makes them much more culpable to those atrocities than a guy like Cohen.

Click to shrink...

You going to completely ignore the fact that Russia has nukes?

 

[kmfdmpig]

So is your assessment that the morally correct thing to do would be for Cohen instead to demand US boots on the ground? I mean if he directly wants to help Ukrainians to meet your standards here then the US is just as guilty currently of allowing all this genocide to happen and we're not literally throwing everything we have at Russia, including the full unadulterated might of the US military.

See this is another thing I have a hard time parsing with people. Cohen let slip that he gets more excited over the idea of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians than a bowl of Cherry Garcia because he thinks the US could be more diplomatic, despite his resume.

Meanwhile, the most funded military in the world with over one million active duty soldiers ready to roll at any time not even counting reserves stands back and just wages a proxy war over what you and others are suggesting is a morally imperative mission.

And you know what? I'm going to agree with you. It is morally correct that we intervene. But ya'know it's funny that as morally righteous this war is on the side of the Ukrainians the US can't bring itself to actively engage with boots on the ground and institute the no-fly zone. Unlike Cohen, they directly have the ability to stop all the things you're criticizing Cohen for apparently ignoring, or at worst is actively in favor of. And yet Biden/Austin/Milley/Blinken/etc. are directly allowing it to continue because we're currently only engaging in what can be I think accurately described as a half-measure to meet that challenge. Everyday the US isn't running sorties and reinforcing Ukrainian troops on the ground is another day the US is also just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away on its own at some point while all those atrocities are happening.

By that standard, the US having the military might to overwhelmingly meet the Russian challenge right this very moment and yet choosing to send care packages and positive vibes to the Ukrainian military instead makes them much more culpable to those atrocities than a guy like Cohen.

Click to shrink...

What is with you and other posters in this thread who take an all or nothing view? Russia is a nuclear power. That's why no one is directly getting involved above and beyond giving arms and Intel. There are options between starting WW3 and doing nothing while hoping for the best.

 

[Jersey_Tom]

Are you unable to engage without constructing straw men?

Click to shrink...

I mean the entire premise of this thread is constructing a straw man against Cohen.

If you haven't realized that I don't know what to tell you, my guy.

 

[Deleted member 11637]

By that standard, the US having the military might to overwhelmingly meet the Russian challenge right this very moment and yet choosing to send care packages and positive vibes to the Ukrainian military instead makes them much more culpable to those atrocities than a guy like Cohen.

Click to shrink...

$32 billion in military aid and counting -- quintuple Ukraine's annual military budget -- isn't "care packages and positive vibes." And a lot of that isn't merely money, but weapons and vehicles we already have and aren't using.

 

[Avitus]

So is your assessment that the morally correct thing to do would be for Cohen instead to demand US boots on the ground? I mean if he directly wants to help Ukrainians to meet your standards here then the US is just as guilty currently of allowing all this genocide to happen and we're not literally throwing everything we have at Russia, including the full unadulterated might of the US military.

See this is another thing I have a hard time parsing with people. Cohen let slip that he gets more excited over the idea of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians than a bowl of Cherry Garcia because he thinks the US could be more diplomatic, despite his resume.

Meanwhile, the most funded military in the world with over one million active duty soldiers ready to roll at any time not even counting reserves stands back and just wages a proxy war over what you and others are suggesting is a morally imperative mission.

And you know what? I'm going to agree with you. It is morally correct that we intervene. But ya'know it's funny that as morally righteous this war is on the side of the Ukrainians the US can't bring itself to actively engage with boots on the ground and institute the no-fly zone. Unlike Cohen, they directly have the ability to stop all the things you're criticizing Cohen for apparently ignoring, or at worst is actively in favor of. And yet Biden/Austin/Milley/Blinken/etc. are directly allowing it to continue because we're currently only engaging in what can be I think accurately described as a half-measure to meet that challenge. Everyday the US isn't running sorties and reinforcing Ukrainian troops on the ground is another day the US is also just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away on its own at some point while all those atrocities are happening.

By that standard, the US having the military might to overwhelmingly meet the Russian challenge right this very moment and yet choosing to send care packages and positive vibes to the Ukrainian military instead makes them much more culpable to those atrocities than a guy like Cohen.

Click to shrink...

I know you think you're clever but really this is just twisting yourself into the dumbest version of a pretzel because you cannot admit Cohen is wrong on one issue. Nice to know you're in favor of even more support too. The truth always comes out.

 

[El Bombastico]

Meanwhile, the most funded military in the world with over one million active duty soldiers ready to roll at any time not even counting reserves stands back and just wages a proxy war over what you and others are suggesting is a morally imperative mission.

Click to shrink...

Please tell me what happens when the US, which has nukes, gets directly involved and declares war against Russia, something which Russia, time and again for over 80 fucking years now, has threatened nuclear war if that ever happens.

Go on, I'll wait...

 

[Jersey_Tom]

You going to completely ignore the fact that Russia has nukes?

Click to shrink...

What is with you and other posters in this thread who take an all or nothing view? Russia is a nuclear power. That's why no one is directly getting involved above and beyond giving arms and Intel. There are options between starting WW3 and doing nothing while hoping for the best.

Click to shrink...

OOOOOOH so we're worried about escalation!

Gee whiz you guys, who could possibly foresee the possibility that continued military intervention in Ukraine brings about the dangers of escalation?

Man. It's a shame there's no one, possibly even in good faith following a lifetime of activism against ethnic cleansing and war is speaking out in favor of finding a way to end this peacefully! Nah, but the only people who could possibly bring that up must clearly be solely on the side of Russia.

Fucking tankies, amirite you guys?

 

[ManOfWar]

Nothing in Cohen's comments doubts any of that happening so I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

A dude literally suggests coming to a cease fire and suddenly he's in support of ethnic cleansing and kidnapping.

The same dude who's used his own relation to his business to call for boycotting a regime in Israel from doing the same as well as ending qualified immunity for police.

That dude from suggesting a diplomatic solution clearly meant by that suggestion that he was pro-murdering all Ukrainians.

Got it. What an absolute monster.

Click to shrink...

The Naive Ice Cream Man is a hypocrite then (sorry if this, somehow, hurt your feelings). By this logic, Palestine doesn't have a chance at defeating Israel and should just give up, seeking yet another diplomatic (surrender) so to avoid more bloodshed.

 

[makonero]

OOOOOOH so we're worried about escalation!

Gee whiz you guys, who could possibly foresee the possibility that continued military intervention in Ukraine brings about the dangers of escalation?

Man. It's a shame there's no one, possibly even in good faith following a lifetime of activism against ethnic cleansing and war trying speaking out in favor of finding a way to end this peacefully! Nah, but the only people who could possibly bring that up must clearly be solely on the side of Russia.

Fucking tankies, amirite you guys?

Click to shrink...

Lmao so it's either nuclear war or hand over every country that Russia decides it owns now?

Fuck that, supporting Ukraine is morally correct and this is the only way to do so that threads the needle of giving them support they need and not giving them all up to be slaughtered. Fuck that.

Considering how personally you're taking all this, can we assume that you are in fact Mr. Cohen himself? Cuz otherwise, why are you caping so hard for a dude that is willfully naive at BEST.

 

[Kerwop]

So is your assessment that the morally correct thing to do would be for Cohen instead to demand US boots on the ground? I mean if he directly wants to help Ukrainians to meet your standards here then the US is just as guilty currently of allowing all this genocide to happen and we're not literally throwing everything we have at Russia, including the full unadulterated might of the US military.

See this is another thing I have a hard time parsing with people. Cohen let slip that he gets more excited over the idea of ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians than a bowl of Cherry Garcia because he thinks the US could be more diplomatic, despite his resume.

Meanwhile, the most funded military in the world with over one million active duty soldiers ready to roll at any time not even counting reserves stands back and just wages a proxy war over what you and others are suggesting is a morally imperative mission.

And you know what? I'm going to agree with you. It is morally correct that we intervene. But ya'know it's funny that as morally righteous this war is on the side of the Ukrainians the US can't bring itself to actively engage with boots on the ground and institute the no-fly zone. Unlike Cohen, they directly have the ability to stop all the things you're criticizing Cohen for apparently ignoring, or at worst is actively in favor of. And yet Biden/Austin/Milley/Blinken/etc. are directly allowing it to continue because we're currently only engaging in what can be I think accurately described as a half-measure to meet that challenge. Everyday the US isn't running sorties and reinforcing Ukrainian troops on the ground is another day the US is also just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away on its own at some point while all those atrocities are happening.

By that standard, the US having the military might to overwhelmingly meet the Russian challenge right this very moment and yet choosing to send care packages and positive vibes to the Ukrainian military instead makes them much more culpable to those atrocities than a guy like Cohen.

Click to shrink...

I don't entirely disagree with you. As someone who isn't American, I would love nothing more than the US military to quickly sweep through Ukraine and eliminate the Russian threat.

Most people don't agree from what I can see. The next best option in my opinion is to give Ukraine the support they need to eliminate the Russians themselves and protect their culture. Ben is standing in the way of that and using his millions to the best of his ability to dissuade people from supporting Ukraine's fight for their freedom. It seems to me that you've inserted yourself in the middle of a debate over ethnic cleansing, but haven't really articulated why you think Ben's money is going to be used for the greater good.

 

[kmfdmpig]

OOOOOOH so we're worried about escalation!

Gee whiz you guys, who could possibly foresee the possibility that continued military intervention in Ukraine brings about the dangers of escalation?

Man. It's a shame there's no one, possibly even in good faith following a lifetime of activism against ethnic cleansing and war is speaking out in favor of finding a way to end this peacefully! Nah, but the only people who could possibly bring that up must clearly be solely on the side of Russia.

Fucking tankies, amirite you guys?

Click to shrink...

I can't tell if you're trolling or just completely lacking in critical thinking ability.

This is his fucking quote:
"I think the U.S. should use its power to negotiate an end to the war, not prolong the death and destruction by supplying more weapons."

That's not about escalation of a war between the US and Russia. It's about stopping help to Ukraine altogether and leaving them to their own devices (in other words being victims of genocide) while Cohen gets to say "bummer, we tried diplomacy but I guess it didn't work".

 

[Avitus]

OOOOOOH so we're worried about escalation!

Gee whiz you guys, who could possibly foresee the possibility that continued military intervention in Ukraine brings about the dangers of escalation?

Man. It's a shame there's no one, possibly even in good faith following a lifetime of activism against ethnic cleansing and war is speaking out in favor of finding a way to end this peacefully! Nah, but the only people who could possibly bring that up must clearly be solely on the side of Russia.

Click to shrink...

These are Cohen's words:

"I think the U.S. should use its power to negotiate an end to the war, not prolong the death and destruction by supplying more weapons."

Click to shrink...

Seeing as how Russia will not agree to any terms that involve them leaving, supplying weapons is the only way to protect Ukrainian lives and sovereignty. Arguing against it at this point does clearly put you on the side of Russia, either as a direct ally or useful idiot. Doubly true considering this is a war of pure imperialism and Russia violated numerous agreed upon pacts by launching the invasion.

Fucking tankies, amirite you guys?

Click to shrink...

Indeed.

 

[El Bombastico]

OOOOOOH so we're worried about escalation!

Gee whiz you guys, who could possibly foresee the possibility that continued military intervention in Ukraine brings about the dangers of escalation?

Man. It's a shame there's no one, possibly even in good faith following a lifetime of activism against ethnic cleansing and war is speaking out in favor of finding a way to end this peacefully! Nah, but the only people who could possibly bring that up must clearly be solely on the side of Russia.

Fucking tankies, amirite you guys?

Click to shrink...

Yes, completely unironically, yes.

 

[Skyzar]

There was an interesting interview with Naftali Bennett who singled out Boris Johnson as having been the one really pushing to reject a diplomatic solution, with other leaders being on the fence.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Again anyone who cares about actual diplomacy as a real thing and not some utopian fantasy where people just decide to get along because it's the right thing to do would be absolutely against stopping aid to Ukraine because real diplomacy works on leverage and if Ukraine loses the backing of western military aid they basically lose all of the leverage they have

 

[Jersey_Tom]

Lmao so it's either nuclear war or hand over every country that Russia decides it owns now?

Click to shrink...

Gotta tell ya. ERA, never fails when it comes to some members completely missing the forest for the trees here.

 

[makonero]

Gotta tell ya. ERA, never fails when it comes to some members completely missing the forest for the trees here.

Click to shrink...

Legitimately, what is wrong with that statement? That is the logical outcome of both your hypotheses.