I've always leaned left, and not in the "American Democrat" way. I've read Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Luxemburg, etc. Not that I agree with them on everything, but they make good points.
But every day I see tankies defend Russia just because it's not the US, I feel like I'm moving more center just out of spite.
But as an account ages, you might leak more and more info about yourself, (e.g. IP addresses, interests based on what you post about, etc). If you then add on a personal detail like age, someone with bad intentions might be able to narrow down who you might be.
When it stops being relevant in the cultural consciousness.
One of the reasons people use Twitter is for up-to-date news and notifications on events. As official organisations move away from it and the user experience degrades, it will just fade away like MySpace.
You can already see this happening. My guess is that it will just go on slow decline. I would bet Twitter will not be nearly as relevant in a year.
Don't change the subject with whatabouttisms tankie.
I can play that game too: Russia held elections at gunpoint in occupied territory. Do you also believe that the elections the US held in Afghanistan and Iraq were free? Or does that only apply to countries that you don't like?
It’s about how a nato official blurted something out
He wanted them to consider it, otherwise he wouldn't have said it. This is not some guy in the pub having a chat with his friends and he "blurted it out" over some beers. These are bureaucrats with highly controlled chains of command.
emediatly had to apologize
He did that after the Ukrainian backlash.
I'm not going to debate who's wining, since you're going to pull out some RT stats. What I'm arguing is the point tankies keep pushing that NATO is somehow pushing Ukrainians into a war against their will, and that NATO is not open to a negotiation to end the war.
You had literally a NATO official suggesting Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Ukrainians getting outraged, and him having to backpedal.
NATO literally proposed to Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Answer this, and don't dodge the question: Why would NATO ever put forth that proposition if they wanted the war to keep going?
How does that contradict what I've said?
They want NATO to send weapons, and they fear Russia (for obvious reasons). And NATO needs to reassure them that they will support them in defending themselves against a potential Russian invasion.
Are you trying to change the subject? Or did you genuinely did not understand what I said?
But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.
Assurance to the other Eastern European countries that are members (read my previous response). The other Eastern European countries want to supply weapons to Ukraine (they have gone above and beyond to send extra to Ukraine).
Yes, NATO doesn't want a deal that could spark another war. And they also offered Ukraine a way to settle a dispute, lose territory, and stop a current war.
Explain to me then: How is the west forcing Ukraine to keep fighting? And don't say "stop supplying weapons", NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.
I've always leaned left, and not in the "American Democrat" way. I've read Marx, Engels, Kropotkin, Luxemburg, etc. Not that I agree with them on everything, but they make good points.
But every day I see tankies defend Russia just because it's not the US, I feel like I'm moving more center just out of spite.