Yay!

Yay!

Can’t it automatically be renewed?

Right as we speak, the US assists Israel in its genocidal mission to destroy Palestine - one condemned by nearly the entire world. So much for “global benevolent police”.

Sure, there needs to be some updates to ensure UN has what it takes to establish an actually useful peacekeeping force. Guess who’s gonna veto it before anyone else, though, and for what reasons. It’s so so profitable to declare yourself a world police without asking anybody, and ravage any place on Earth on demand.

And this is one of the issues where I can’t reasonably agree to disagree. Covering up for mass murdering hegemon is not an option, whatever said hegemon is.

Cheers, though.

So, bring in security by initiating wars?

My point is, these interventions have never been about democracy, or freedom, or security for that matter. They were about forcibly creating dependent puppet states acting in the economic interest of the US and reinforcing its hegemony, locals be damned. And it’s what every “successful” invasion has provided.

Take something like Chile as an example (it’s a particularly black-and-white one, but there are plenty more). It was a liberal democracy ran by an elected President, who just so happened to be socialist. The reforms he has introduced threatened foreign capital within the nation, including the American one; as a result, CIA has first launched a propaganda campaign, and when this failed, sponsored and armed a coup that led to the instatement of a brutal and bloody authoritarian regime.

Did the country become more democratic? No. Did it become safer? Hell no. But it suddenly became very dependent on and friendly to American capital, which this entire operation was all about.

If we want some real world police, we should extend the scope of the UN Peacekeepers, instead of relying on a country with a hundred year history of arbitrary invasions and covert interventions. We need the peacekeeping force to be globally recognized and supported.

I don’t know why do some people feel their country is entitled to carry world’s justice. It’s not better or more just, it’s just properly defended against retaliation. It is harassment, not policing.

F I N A L L Y

Now tell me it supports IPv6 and I’ll be the happiest man alive

For what it is in what respect? You tried to argue that Cold War is a good vs evil situation, I argued that it is very much evil vs evil.

I fully admit Russia is and always was (I told you why nineties don’t really count) an autocracy, and that actions of Russian rulers have caused a lot of misery and suffering. This doesn’t stop me from admitting the US is a deeply flawed democracy, that American rulers are known to take plenty of unpopular decisions (including wars that no one asked for), and are generally known to not care about lives of people outside the country, causing even more misery all around the globe up to this day.

And this is exactly why I want the governments to have less power, and advocate for direct democracy. Any power is potential for abuse, and Russia and the US have likely proved it the most. Curbing the power of all governments, big and small, has great potential to reduce violence and abuse. With direct democracy and independent media, Russia could have never attacked Ukraine, Israel could never attack Palestine, and US wouldn’t threaten to enter Iran yet again. Russia also wouldn’t have opposition in jails or abroad, US wouldn’t send immigrants to Alligator Alcatraz, and level of human misery would be so much less.

As long as we lead ourselves to believe that this misery and suffering is righteous or “not that bad” to any degree, we empower the tyrants all around the globe.

Oh, Connect is still out there? Thought it is dead.

Annexation by USSR touched Baltics and parts of Poland. The rest was more of puppet governments - something the US has practiced extensively all around the globe.

Part of it was ex-Axis powers (like Japan), the other part - just about any government thinking of socialism or economic independence from the US or having oil (Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Brazil, Bolivia, Cambodia, Syria, Guatemala, China, Egypt - you name it). After the Cold War, there were barely a few years US was not involved in some conflict or the other over its “national interests” or “national security”, suggesting that it was never about rivalry with USSR. Needless to say, local population was generally not very happy about getting these military interventions, carpet bombings, coups and instated dictators.

So, I cannot in good faith agree that US was any better in this respect. Both sucked a lot, and same is likely to happen to any grand military power - if anything because military needs experience to stay efficient, and with great power comes great desire to use it to your advantage.

This took a weird turn, and I hoped we are on the same page.

I do not support Russian government, and I hoped I made it very clear. All I call for is being honest when making accusations towards anyone.

“Russia is behind this” became a common trope that seemingly doesn’t need any confirmation. Someone called it on Russia - then Russia it is. It’s an instrument of propaganda, and it’s how people are trained to believe whatever they hear without even attempting to check proofs.

Cold war is literally both sides, and I don’t know what angle makes it not true. Could you elaborate why you put all blame on USSR, exactly?

There were issues with USSR, and quality of life and level of democracy was generally higher in the US; but what does it mean in the context of foreign relations? Isn’t/wasn’t the US literally the number 1 most invasive country on Earth, with military installations all around the globe and an insane toll of global conflicts and inflicted misery? With all respect, if we compare these two countries specifically, USSR was rather a cute little nuance, and it must take a lot of indoctrination to fail to see it.

Again, this is not to say either USSR or Russia are flawless or even good; a lot of fuckery went on in each, which has caused immense suffering. But if we consider Russian/Soviet imperialism, we should be sure not to apply double standards, or else you’ll risk overlooking dangerous precedents.

Oh, I know that feeling! Sorry to know the long comment is gone, happened to me more than once.

Oh, so you attribute the rise of Finnish right-wing to Russia as well, as in Russian agencies artificially create a wave of anti-immigration and then send immigrants in? Honestly, with all the real damage Russia has done, I feel like it is used as a scapegoat here; among a few reasonably confirmed cases (mostly of Russia killing dissidents abroad etc.), there is a sea of practically baseless speculation. Last time I saw this was a few days ago, when German military vehicles burned and journalists attributed it to Russia because some random pro-Russia Telegram channel mentioned it (and did so with clear factual errors that are alone enough to dismiss it).

Cold war, we should remember, was a two-sided conflict. It was not good vs evil, it was capitalist world full of red scare and propaganda vs communist block full of authoritarianism and, again, propaganda. Both sides could do much more to maintain peace, it’s just that one side has eventually collapsed, leaving the other to rule the world and write history books. And as much as Europe was concerned about USSR being on their doorsteps, so was USSR concerned about militarization of Europe with the aid of the US. That’s what this entire showoff is based on; it’s not a one-sided show of intimidation, and, arguably, both sides would rather not have it. Moreover, it was started by the US swinging nuclear arms around, and then USSR jumped along.

I’m not sure what you consider to be a shot of democracy - perestroika itself or the dissolution of the Soviet Union? In first case, yes, it was a welcome change, but as some of the Soviet republics, particularly in the Baltics, were essentially held in by force and censorship, it was a catalyst for the future dissolution, which is likely why it wasn’t done sooner. Dissolution itself brought a lot of freedom to the former republics which were not super fond of being Soviet to begin with, but was a disaster for Russia, Belarus, and new states in the Middle East. In the latter, there was nothing to blow as there was nothing democratic about them to begin with - it was just a bunch of new dictators.

Speaking of Russia in particular, while trying to show a face of democratic change, Yeltsin has consolidated power by creating puppet parties (including a puppet Communist party), silencing opposition by not letting them into main federal TV channels that were the main information source at the time, and destroying existing democratic institutions, sometimes with actual military force (see the assault on Congress of People’s Deputies). By the time Putin (heavily endorsed by Yeltsin as the new leader of the country) got to rule Russia, it was already heavily in United Russia party’s grip. Make no mistake - this was a show of democracy designed to be blown. And, sure, it was an easy play, as Russians by then never really knew the times they, and not someone in the high cabinets, could vote someone in.

We should certainly have experts running and planning critical parts of the economy, but we should also make sure it’s as hard to corrupt as possible. Governments are prone of injecting propaganda in schools we both care about, cutting medical spending, and attacking nuclear plants during the wars. If we should have governments at all, they should either work through as much of direct democracy and self-organizing as opposed to representative power (which is quite close to anarchy), or through careful and open computerized planning with active input of the people. The global political goals in the meantime should shift towards cooperation and integration on all levels, so that one plot of land uniting against the other plot of land would look as absurd as it actually is.

Instance name checks out

Also, hello there, fellow labrat! Are you a microbiologist?

Immigration being seen as a weapon has always bewildered me. If people come to your country, commonly running away from famine and war, and you see them as nothing but a weapon, something is seriously wrong. I am aware some countries like Finland are already fairly filled with immigrants, but Europe could use some more cooperation to solve this.

To my perspective, Russian government was not the bad one, it was a rival, as in yet another place being run by shitheads. Funnily enough, 1991-2000 was actually the time when liberties coming from Perestroika were tanked again, the country was destroyed against people’s will, and wild privatization combined with corruption has left millions in deep poverty and famine; crime arose. People had their homeland taken away from them before they could react, and they were intentionally kept clueless on what was going on. But it was also the time when Russia had better relations with Europe and the US, which is why this period is seen as “Russia being good”.

Removing all governments overnight is not feasible indeed. But we should admit the harms patriotic and, as a radical extension, nationalist models cause to society at large and our global cooperation, we should own up to what it means to hostility, warfare, and breeding idiots who make it worse for all of us. Every time someone tries to instill patriotic feelings within the population, they just want to make us more controllable and divided. We shouldn’t let them. And as an extension of that, we should advocate for direct democracy and gradual dissolution of government as a main controlling entity.

This doesn’t mean, however, that you can’t praise certain decisions made by your government. They can be objectively good!

Guess that’s why Europe has built defences against immigrants, and many European countries straight up rejected to accept them? And that’s why right-wingers with their anti-immigration policies win over more and more votes?

My point is, this is one of the consequences that comes with national identity. For some, it’s just unfair preference of “their” people and things, for others, it’s nationalism and xenophobia.

Blocking “disinformation” is also a slippery slope towards autocracy. Y’know, Russia did the same back in the day. I understand that it feels like a necessity amidst hybrid wars, but it’s bound to be problematic down the road.

Nope, I’m from Russia.

But then again, where does that not have its place? Are people in Europe, say, universally welcoming to immigrants? Or maybe Asia is not full of xenophobia? Africa, at least?..

There are much better factors of unity than being on a certain plot of land.

We can always do our best to make it closer.

Most people claim this to be Utopian, and then just try to tone it down in others, so their own compliance is not seen to themselves as weakness but rather “wisdom”. No - it is a surrender, an act of learned helplessness.

Sure, it’s hard to force politicians to abandon the concept of nations, and it’s hard to bring a revolt to a population so compliant.

But everyone can make personal steps.

First, admit that patriotism is bullshit. There is no ground to be patriotic, and nothing realistically unites you with your “nation”. You have more in common with a person of the same position on the other side of the globe than you have with the president of your very “own” country.

Second, watch your own preferences in people and what you factor in your decision. Maybe you give too much weight to where the person comes from? Is it that you label people in some way based on that characteristic alone?

Third, if you have the opportunity, form an international collective, reach out to specialists within other nations, or if you can’t, see if you can build a collective or even just a friend group with the immigrants around you.

Fourth - advocate for people in other countries, learn what they face, what they get to endure. For example - do you know that the deadliest of recent wars was not in Ukraine or Palestine, but in Ethiopia? What do you know about the current situation in Myanmar, aside from the Facebook drama? Did you consider supporting women rights’ causes in the Middle East?

Personal action and involvement will not allow you to fall for the traps the state tries to implant in your mind, and you’ll be personally responsible for a small, but proud piece of international cooperation - one that should become commonplace to the point when it wouldn’t make sense for anyone to draw divisions.

Human life is human life. Human suffering is human suffering - here or on the other side of the globe. The concepts of unity, hope, and cooperation are all universally recognized wherever you are. Why not step in?

We should band together based on mutual respect and common responsibility, and not based on someone telling us who to band with and who not to.

The concept of nation-state doesn’t allow us to band with whoever we like, and calls to unite with people born in place X (and commonly against people born in place Y). The concept of state in general oversees and dictates our relationships more broadly.

Multitude of states all fostering loyalty to their rulers doesn’t allow many people to look at those of other nations as equals and fellows with shared global goals. Sure, messages of international peace are commonplace, but hey, we should definitely exclude those pesky Chinese/Russians/Americans/Ukrainians/Israelis/Palestinians/whatever!

When we categorize people by nations through the lens of state, we put easy labels that are far from true. If someone’s a Russian, he sure supports war in Ukraine. If someone’s American, he sure is personally responsible for all the immigrant scare. If someone’s born in Israel or China, clearly he’s all on board with genocide!

At the same time, state-level patriotism fosters coming to terms with terrible people within the nation. Sure, our billionaires might be at fault in some ways, but it’s better than other country’s evil and corrupt billionaires! Our rulers are wise leaders, their rulers are cruel autocrats! My neighbor is a terrible person, but at least he’s not one of those <input the nation with bad stereotypes>!

It forces us to make preference to people who may not deserve our support, who might be actively undermining our causes, it leads us to close our eyes on the sufferings of others outside our arbitrary group that doesn’t even share our views and goals.

Now, I know it doesn’t have to be that extreme, but patriotism is always showing preference to someone or something based on a very arbitrary characteristic, instead of honest and fair consideration. It’s an intentionally cultivated fallacy.

On a personal note, I’d rather avoid ad hominem attacks if you’d like to keep a good faith discussion running. And, FYI, I never take any drugs, not even alcohol.

The state should not exist. We are people of Earth, and we should not be divided by someone. Divided, we are powerless to make a global change, and those who divide us reap all the benefits of this bullshit system.

State-level patriotism is always bullshit to begin with.

That’s how you’re tricked into loyalty based on the most arbitrary reasons.

Be the messenger of humanity and get curious about the Universe. People are brothers, and there’s no pride in being born in one plot of land over the other.

written before reading the article; it get the topic from another, more interesting and less imaginary, angle

Do we explore it post-Google or post-anything that would take its place?

Because those are two very different scenarios. There are plenty of Big Tech corps that are willing to take Google’s place.

If we actually mean no one does search with targeted advertising and stuff, my bets are on more indie sites popping up, and Fediverse getting stronger as well.

We’ll have more link indices, and more relevant search results hosted on different corners of the Internet.

On the negative: unless open-source projects step up their game, usability and quality of web interfaces will suffer dramatically. And without truly massive Fediverse or at least decent webrings, finding basic information and connecting to others might actually get harder.

(not me downvoting)

I understand the concern with locally made software. However, I’d rather see something open-source come from the US than something closed source come from my own country.

Speaking of Konqueror, what about Falkon? It is the newer option by KDE team, and works on a more modern engine. And, it works on Windows.