I believe our basic assumptions of other people reveal more about ourselves than them. Still yikes, don’t double down on wishing death on people.

Yikes. That is still a person you are wishing death for.

Sorry man, but we both know there is a distance between “kidnapping people off the street” and illegal procedure in the procurement of soldiers. The martial law, with grounds in the Ukrainian constitution, allows pretty much for conscripting any male within age 18 to 60 something. That the process is not done in due order is concerning, but also to some degree understandable given the circumstances. Do I think they should even be allowed to conscript just about anyone, of course not, but that doesn’t make talking about what is actually going on fair game and what you are really saying true. As an addendum I want to say that something being founded in law or not doesn’t make it morally right or wrong. Hence the problem is not the distribution of forms nor the method of extracting unwillful populace for war (which is what the article mentions and uses as grounds for it claims of kidnapping), but the almost unbounded conscription itself. This is also why war is terrible, allowing for situations like this, and none should be happy for using Ukrainians or Russians for fighting the West nor anybody else.

The problem is rhetoric matters, and kidnapping implies abduction for the purpose of gaining claims, money or exercising terror. Lemmygrad is too stuffed with people using rhetoric that in turn allows them to react with hateful comments. That is why I want to split hairs. We all know what kidnapping means and what context it is usually used for, but you guys really want to use the term even though a better fit is just the plain truth that they are doing illegal and forceful recruiting. The reason you want to do this is to call Ukraine and the West special in this regard, which is not truthful, showing why rhetoric matters.

Sure, but you can’t ignore the other half of the definition. It is the same with wrongful incarceration: checks some of the boxes but is not really kidnapping. Still the main point is also ignored regarding the uniqueness of the situation: It is not a special case by any means.

Literally kidnapping means

to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, especially for use as a hostage or to extract ransom

making the usage of it in terms of illegal mobilization seem a bit disingenuous. Not to say that is not problematic, but my main point was that illegal detention of people for use as soldiers in war is hardly unique to western countries nor Ukraine in this conflict. You, and the article, can easily make this point without misrepresenting the facts.

That is an okay assessment. I would generally dismiss anyone calling to kill anyone for whatever reason, but as I wrote in another comment this person did not seem to me to call for killing anyone as much as using it as part of a vernacular of who needs to be dealt with to fix society, which is frequently employed by leftist in various forms (usually with respect to the bourgeoisie). I think people from Lemmygrad should not be surprised that others are disgusted when they voice support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on other instances. That it isn’t more of a controversial subject here is to me a little surprising, speaking from both an ideological and pragmatic point of view. Not that this excuses the “need to be killed” comment, but I do think the context is important and that OP took the exact excerpt needed to incite rage and that this was done purposefully.

but I won’t because it’s gross.

Thanks, I agree and Monsieur should go touch some grass.

Thanks for mentioning this. Though I think it is well known that Arabic and Indian societies were ahead of Europe with regards to mathematics for a long time, I have never thought about the lack of famous mathematicians outside of Europe. That being said, any serious mathematician would say that being a great mathematician is just as much as being at the right place at the right time as a being a genius. It is sad that these names are, if not lost to history, at least not well known, but praising any name of a discipline that builds on previous works in the way mathematics does is a little wrong in the first place. Even the dickhead Newton admitted as much with the “shoulders of giants” comment with regards to himself.

You are not wrong. However, it is also possible to through such questions pose valid problems such as whether the organization is going in the right direction and is it actually making progress. My main issue is with the comment I responded to reducing the dissenting voice to a stupid fallacy along with the sentiment of "I am smart and they are not^slamdunk ".

Why do you read on The American Conservative? Call me judgemental, but I would guess they are not so much anti war as america first, the latter which is just mask on fascism.

Conscription and full mobilization in wartime is not really a western thing though and not really the same as kidnapping. This coming from the point of someone hating the idea of even having a military, narrowly evading conscription myself a few years ago. If you do have some other sources for your claim I would be happy to take a look at them.

I looked through a lot of their comments and saw an abundance of “killing” statements, mostly against CEOs of oil companies and such. As a figure of speech, I do think it is fine. I for one will not pretend I have not said anything similar about the capitalist class. To me it seems you are reacting to who they said it about, and then I think we need to try to understand rather than mischaracterize: If not just swallowing the rage bait of OP (sorry OP, but I think it is) and actually investigating the convo, it should be clear that they are conflating their belief that OP is acting in support of a fascist regime with OP being actual fascist and subsequently saying that fascists got to be removed. Irony is that if MonsieurHedge had bothered reading OP’s comments better and not get a rage boner, they would too see that OP is not a fascist pretending to be commie as they claim in another comment.

I don’t see why you assume that they adhere to horseshoe theory. How I understood them was an attempt to call out the discrepancy between being commie while supporting a fascist regime, albeit the killing part was not tasteful, but again no worse than “the only good nazi is a dead nazi”.

Why spare the pity though? It is complacency that is the problem. Imo pity is the first step towards solidarity and the quote feels off for me since I can imagine a number of contexts that would give it a terrible look. The whole idea that one can forge the future to one’s will with hard work is just capitalist propaganda.