Not quite. There's a concept called "spheres of influence." I have no influence over what Russia does. I do (at least in theory) have some influence over what the US does. So yes, I'm more critical of representatives I voted for allowing a $700B military budget and 800+ foreign military bases. - ThreadSky

newscoulomb.bsky.social • 2 days ago

Not quite. There's a concept called "spheres of influence." I have no influence over what Russia does. I do (at least in theory) have some influence over what the US does. So yes, I'm more critical of representatives I voted for allowing a $700B military budget and 800+ foreign military bases.

Comments

mattevansc3.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yeah, not a big fan of logical fallacies. Spheres of influence has nothing to do with the level of, or type of criticism we have. Especially on a social media platform talking to a British political commentator.
How much the US spent has no bearing on Russia’s multiple invasions of Ukraine.

newscoulomb.bsky.social•2 days ago

And yet you seem to fall victim to those logical fallacies. 🤷‍♂️ First, $700B is more than 50% of the US discretionary budget. That's completely unhinged. Second, Russia isn't the country with immunity from prosecution for war crimes who is also threatening ICC investigators. That would be the US.

mattevansc3.bsky.social•2 days ago

A logical fallacy is when someone uses a rhetorical tool, like “spheres of influence” to justify a stance. Only one of us did that and I’m replying to that person. And nothing you said has anything to do with Russia invading Ukraine because Russia has invaded countries that don’t get US money.

newscoulomb.bsky.social•2 days ago

In terms of specific fallacies, neoliberals like to defer to accusations of tu quoque when people call them out on their crap, but that wouldn't apply here because you specifically asked why we focus on US foreign policy. Saying "because it sucks" is a valid, germane response, not a logical fallacy.

newscoulomb.bsky.social•2 days ago

You should look up "logical fallacy," because it doesn't appear that you know what the term means. In a general context, the term is meaningless. You would need to cite specific fallacies and arguments. Otherwise, you're just throwing crap at the wall.

newscoulomb.bsky.social•2 days ago

In a geopolitical sense, you seem to lack nuance. In the eyes of many countries, "soft" invasions and coups are indistinguishable from "hard" invasions. The US helped install a government in Ukraine. Russia saw that as an existential threat. We're now experiencing the consequences. End of story.

mattevansc3.bsky.social•2 days ago

Dear Lord, that’s not nuance, that’s revisionism. Ukraine’s prior prime minister was a pro-Russian plant. That’s how Russia operates. Russia is an imperialist country that still uses the colonial tactics of the British empire.
The only existential threat was to the creation of a new Russian empire.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply