BruceVC

You raising an absolutely valid assessment of what Putin has been doing over the last 20 years where he has set himself the unnecessary task of trying to recreate the old USSR borders but the strategy used is generally the same in examples like Georgia and Ukraine. He targets regions that are Russian speaking and identify with being Russian citizens and then invades\annexes them and these regions suddenly become part of "Russia " So yes the ultimate objective is try to to recreate the USSR borders but it has so many design problems, for example its not much of economic union compared to the EU or old USSR so what is the reason for it apart from a disjointed geographical barrier Here is something that you may not be aware of but the Russian people have never experienced or lived in a true Democracy or really experienced how free markets economics does allow economies to grow and people to have a better quality of life. This is an important point in understanding Putins reasoning with this type of geopolitical aggression Russia went from the decadent and corrupt Tsar Nicholas monarchy who really made terrible decisions in WW1 that cost millions of Russian lives to the system of Communism that was well meaning in certain views but not sustainable economically. Then only in the mid 1990's did it become apparent to Gorbachev that the USSR was bankrupt which meant the Cold War was over but not due to the political or military advancements of the West ....no it was much simpler but irrefutable. A system that becomes bankrupt is a failure So people like Putin watched warily as the USSR dissolved and the Russian people were told truthfully that now they can experience Democracy and Capitalism and of course these systems are the right choices because the Cold War was over But a terrible and unintentional mistake was made when no Western country thought that when you implement a proper Democracy and embrace Capitalism in any country for the first time you must allow a transition period and create institutions that exist in the new Democracy that monitor and allow for these systems to be correctly implemented and you must have laws and normal regulation of the private sector and ensure that wealth creation is not abused But by the time Putin came to power in 2000 many Russians felt that Yeltsin and all these changes to make Russia a Democracy had only weakened the country and Putin always believed that this was intentionally done to Russia by the West for some strange reason But the real problems that existed in Russia during Yeltsin time, like the utter greed and wealth of the Oligarchs , was not because of the West. I dont think their was enough governance and financial accountability in the new Russia to not ensure the corruption of the Oligarchs So when Putin came to power in 2000 he considered Russia to be its worst possible state where things like pride of being Russian had vanished and their seemed to be a failure of leadership strength. Many prominent ex-KGB military people supported him when he made it clear he would reverse this and from that moment on Putin has never had an issue with ignoring basic freedoms and rights that exist in all our countries and acting within Russia illegally to remove any threat to the Russian state. And I support the early actions of how Putin took economic control from the Oligarchs and he definitely restored much of Russia pride by 2007 or so So thats why its fairly consistent in Russia for the state to be involved in highly illegal state sponsored events like assassination of journalists or opposition party members and things like the clamping down on any protests on a more free society But at least 55-60 % of Russian people support the autocratic nature of how Putin runs the country and if you ask any Russian who supports Putin " how do you feel about the erosion of Democracy in Russia " they will say something like " this is a better Russia than under Yeltsin, we support Putin " And thats how they think of Geopolitics where they will ignore international laws if its what Putin thinks suits the broader objectives of Russia But what other countries will want to join the new Russia alliance outside of what we already see ?

Dont worry about this photo, I assume you would be opposed to any extreme right views that include Nazi inspired movements which is normal But this is not a representation of a real problem in Ukraine that will justify a Russian invasion. Remember Russia is trying to find a " justification " for a military invasion even though I dont see any long-term benefits for Russia in doing this so I still think its Brinkmanship

Oh so you do know something about the human rights reality of China, why didnt you respond to my question about Russia and China with the same alacrity and agreement I am just teasing because I want to tell you something. You and Gorth have responded in detail to my posts about structural racism and what " white, male privlidege " means and I have read what you have mentioned and I hope you continue to share your view on these topics But when I ask questions I am not trying to catch you out, I am making a point and sometimes you allow the other person to come to his own conclusion which is the same as your point. So I wasnt comparing Russia, China and ME to Western countries around their human rights records because then its easy and meaningless. You wont address any societal issues in any country with that type of " whataboutism" because its well known these countries dont believe or support human rights or care about freedom in the same way as much of the world does But Gorthfuscious made a final statement in his post which I quoted below so my question was more about his framing of how any country can become racist. If I am correct with what he is saying then I agree that any country ruled of fear and nationalism will descend into some sort of discombobulation ....but surly the US is not an example of fear and nationalism? The Trump presidency was an anomaly and hopefully we wont see another disruptor like him again unless the Democrats continue to fail to galvanize belief in their policies .....they can could literally hand victory to the GOP and hopefully not Trump but another Republican candidate is fine. Much of the societal issues in the US since Trump became president was not normal for how the US president conducts itself with decorum and protocol. But he did have an impact on emboldening certain right wing groups globally and he continues to feed the far right media like Newsmax with conspiracy theories about " the big lie " But that only occurred in the US because of Trump and his presidency so the US shouldnt be judged on the current political problems and dichotomy in the US generally? Anyway I was asking only because the Trump presidency was still regulated by the US Constitution and Congress and no US president can do anything he wants Any modern country ruled by fear and nationalism seems to move from systemic (or low key) racism to overt racism as a tool to focus peoples anger... from Germany 1933 to Trump 2016

@Gfted1 I often find myself agreeing with the sentiment of what you raise even if we may have different reasons for that common view. And I am interested in your view of what I am suggesting or asking I have been following this debate you and Hurlshot are having and its very interesting for me. I do think you are raising valid questions and I hope Hurlshot reads this because its a more positive understanding of what Wells Fargo did and his opinion matters because he raised this. Also for me this debate is also relevant to the current debate that Im having @Gorth and @Chairchucker about systemic racism in Oz banks @Hurlshot Thanks for posting the link below so we can get on understanding of what Wells Fargo did. Normally when people have an issue with global companies and or the financial sector they dont post links explaining the criticism towards the bank. I read what they did and its one the worst cases of abuse I have ever come across when banks decide on loans and credit. But this malfeasance occurred mostly from 2004-2009 and that was during the dark days of the 2008 crisis and unfortunately their were example of this type of behavior. And Im glad that they are paying that $175 million relief But it also only impacted about 4000 black and Hispanic clients when it came to the way they created irregular loans and terms and about 30000 black and Hispanic clients were subjected to unfair bank charges So I dont think we should attribute something to this thats not necessarily connected ?But your case must be valid if you getting money back so you are https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-wells-fargo-resulting-more-175-million-relief But I am not clear on something about how you applied for the loan, did you and your wife apply together and you shared your expenses, salary slip and other necessary paperwork with the bank?

Comrade whats your view on racism? Do you think most\all white people are inherently racist and do you think you are racist? I dont think you racist ?

Interesting post, you raise some good talking points I do think you are conflating some issues like credit profile checks with racism, banks dont decide on loans based on race they decide on risk profile and whether you can pay back the loan. I have never heard of anyone not getting finance because of their race? Maybe you can provide links so I see what you talking about, do you know how many white people I know who have had credit and things like home loans denied to them? I dont agree the Western world is largely racist, it exists but it is incidents of racism and not structural. Do you think bigotry is worse in the West or in places like the ME, Russia and China? At least in Western countries their is societal and media acknowledgement and criticism of it or do you disagree? And then Im not obsessed with BLM, they represent a vocal but ultimately small part of my ideological views. Some of you guys keep bringing it up every time I mention it but their are many more pertinent developments than BLM when we discuss inequality and bigotry. So do you mind dropping the whole " you believe BLM is responsible for all the problems in our societies " ( because thats not what I believe) point when I raise issues about them and just respond to the question I raise about them, I can provide links if necessary to confirm what I am talking about ?

Thanks for sharing, I have heard people raise similar issues to what you saying and I agree with some of it but you referring to the Oz experience and not the global reality of how true " white, male privlidege " is so we not debating the same point Have you heard about a suggestion, it comes from the US, from some BLM activists that the way you deal with structural racism is all white people must first admit we all inherently racist. So the argument basically being if you acknowledge something as true then you can start to address it I dont agree with that logic because why would anyone admit something as true if its not ? So why would I say I am racist if I am not? Whats your view on that argument because it intersects with your view and the systemic racism in Oz ?

I am watching the following series Yellowjackets : A mystery series, similar to Lost, about a women's soccer team who crashes in Canada and how did some of them survive ....huge supernatural potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowjackets_(TV_series) LA BREA : A sci-fi series about a massive sinkhole that opens in LA and this sinkhole leads to 10,000 BC. It sounds silly but its vert well done and " believable " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_(TV_series) Honour: A true story about the honor killing and disappearance of a Kurdish women in the UK, its only 2 episodes and worth watching to understand this appalling type of criminality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_(TV_series)

Finally another fantasy TV series I can really get behind because I have read the books and the Riftwar saga is excellent. Like the Witcher @Zoraptor Zora forget WoT, the Riftwar is a TV series you need to support

CRT is about a selective review of history and it creates a false or inaccurate reading of that history, the events of history are always immutable. Only the reasons or motives of people are a debate because unless their is written record we can only reflect on the outcomes of history and not what people thought . Holocaust denialists or people thinking " Jews are white so what happened isn't genocide " ( this is what that SA professor said ) is also a false interpretation of history So what she said isnt directly part of the curriculum of CRT ( as far as we have access to it ) but the historical misinformation is the same Okay, Im still not 100 % clear on your point but I think I understand. Can you clarify what you mean by Goldbergs comments being about a different interpretation of the Holocaust, we both agree what she said is incorrect and unacceptable but I am interested in the interpretation you are referring to. Because its simple to me, the Holocaust was genocide and the definition of genocide is the following "In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group " So Im unclear how anyone can have a different definition of what the Holocaust is unless a person is uninformed or you have your own selective interpretation ? Thanks for engaging in these debates, I appreciate your opinion even if we dont agree on everything I agree that both the " left " and " right" are not monolithic groups in reality but in debates like this its easier to use those generalizations because of the nuance and complexities of these groups. We can always go into more specificities if you want in future debates? Do you believe all white people where the default ethnicity is white come from " white, male privlidege " automatically because we born white? What about South Africa, white people are only 6% and often " white, male privlidege " gets raised? So Im trying to understand when this term is relevant and when it doesnt apply ?

Im not sure we debating the same point and concern? My point is Goldberg repeated a false and selective understanding of history and in this case its about the Holocaust. She stated indirectly " the Holocaust was not about race because its white people killing white people ". Here is exactly what she said and the link is below “Let’s be truthful about it because [the] Holocaust isn’t about race,” Goldberg said on Monday’s episode. “It’s not about race. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man… These are two white groups of people. The minute you turn it into race it goes down this alley. Let’s talk about it for what it is. It’s [about] how people treat each other. It doesn’t matter if you’re Black or white, Jews — it’s each other.” https://www.aol.com/whoopi-goldberg-criticized-anti-defamation-002353328.html This is what some people who believe in this type of revisionist and selective history believe, they think Jews are white so its okay what happened because " white people did this to group xxx in their history " or something similar I have personally come across this example of selective\uninformed history before in other debates. Here is a link to a SA professor of political science that believes the same thing https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2021-04-08-uct-launches-investigation-into-academics-lecture-on-adolf-hitler/ This debate is not a comparison between which minority group has been the greater target of oppression and bigotry. This is about a commentator not understanding her own argument and this is studiously misunderstand by a small groups of people globally as it suits their own ideological narrative

I agree the book Maus shouldnt have been banned in Tennessee but the good news is as usual with this type of cancel culture it is now a bestseller on places like Amazon https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/28/maus-amazon-bestseller-after-tennessee-school-ban.html But what concerns me much more is commentators and activists like Goldberg who dont even know the history and facts of their own arguments, how much other selective history is out their that influences people ?

In what way is it simplistic, can you elaborate? Because many people do feel their is a modern societal narrative that makes generalizations based on race, for example " white, male privlidege " is an assumption for some and all white people benefit from it ?

55 hours into NWN EE and Im right at the end. I really have loved my gaming sojourn back to the Forgotten Realms and reminded me how excited I am about BG3 What I also am really enjoying is the usage of the D&D ruleset, I love using spells like Spell Breach and Protection of Alignment effectively in combat 🎆

Yes, their is a tendency to focus on the extreme comments from some Christians to suggest this is what all Christians think or its used in a pejorative way to malign Christianity generally But generalizations are typically never helpful and dont represent what all people think who are labelled in the same way

You win the globally coveted " BruceVC funniest post of the week "

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/whoopi-goldberg-apologizes-after-her-holocaust-statements-causes-outrage-132228165736 Im not sure if everyone is aware of Whoopi Goldbergs offensive and ignorant comments about the Holocaust @Malcador Her lack of understanding of history is similar to that SA professor I posted about a few weeks ago where he thought Jews are white and they not their own ethnic group But this type of willful ignorance is more common than many people may think and is all about a lack of interest in history except when it comes revisionist and selective history. So Goldberg for example thought " the Holocaust was not about race because it was white people killing white people " My view on this type of false narrative is still the same, people who engage in these public debates should study the correct history of what they claim they care about and spend less time on CRT and other types of selective history Oh but she apologized and has only been suspended for 2 weeks so she will keep that particular job

Elerond that is definitely a candidate many people can support, he makes sense

I wanted to mention this earlier but its normal and healthy to have platonic relationships with women, I consider my friendships with my lady friends to be equally as important as the physical\sexual relationships I have with women And you brought up this possible age barrier with your friend , if she was 20 and you were 47 I would say its unusual but if she is 25-28 ( or older ) and you 52 or older its really not such a big deal unless you want it to be I dont think the age gap should be a reason you think " I cant try to date her" because sometimes in life many other more important things can influence a relationship and the age is not necessarily one of those Also I have dated lots of single moms and I find them generally to be very reasonable about lots of thing but is she a single mom?

Very detailed post, thanks for sharing The Portuguese system of government sounds complicated and a big mess....now I know why you immigrated to Sweden 🇸🇪

, okay now it makes sense. Yes the word " ruling " made it confusing ....you right. Its not a well written article

Im still confused, the article says " Portugal's ruling Socialist Party has won an unexpected outright majority in Sunday's snap general election for only the second time in its history" Who did they hand power over to if they lost ?

But the article says the Socialist party are the ruling party so I dont think they handed victory to anyone, this just affirmed their right to govern ?

You a student of history, why would you believe and think NATO borders nowadays have got anything to do with an invasion or attack on Russia when it didnt happen in the 50 years or so of the Cold War? Its a complete false narrative this argument that " poor mother Russia thinks that NATO will invade if its member countries are near our borders " This is primarily about economic and ideological concerns and not military concerns

Thats just part of the false narrative from Putin, he is asking for something that he knows the NATO members wont acquiesce to. This is brinkmanship from Putin and he is a master at it and Im glad you not falling for it Another ridiculous comment I heard today on CNN from this Russian apologist is that Russia has information that Ukraine is massing troops and plans to invade the Donbas region...so Russia will be " forced " to invade Ukraine to save those citizens who identify as Russian Its gaslighting 101