Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the removal of Come Back Alive

blog.patreon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 428 posts

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#141

Post by ptr »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #111
jacquesm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, this is beyond disgusting.

Do you really think Ukraine has a reasonable chance of resisting this invasion? It doesn't look like it to me. So what are you offering other than prolonging the agony?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Of course they have a chance. Their current strength is about 465k men (and women). Add on top the general mobilization happening now. They're also strongly motivated, which the Russians aren't. Ukraine can definitely do this.

Also, giving up doesn't guarantee people will be safe. Russian occupation forces aren't usually very nice.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#142

Post by jacquesm »

Sebb767 wrote: post #114
jacquesm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, you could argue that the EU/NATO expansion did provoke this, too. You could, but it would be bullshit. > But I'm getting distracted here; I really don't want to defend Russia and especially not their recent actions. I also don't think that helping the Ukraine is a bad thing, quite the opposite actually. My point is that you don't get to both condone violence and keep your status as "peaceful" because it's aga…

> You could, but it would be bullshit. In your (our) opinion. But that does not make it an absolute truth. > If you really had paid attention to German history you would have realized that sometimes violence is the only way to deal with an emerging threat. It is precisely the lack of decisive action that allowed Hitler the space to do what he did. And that's why I ended my post with: >> It might sometimes be necessar…

> But that does not make it an absolute truth.

There we have that false balance thing again. It's documented bullshit, so you can choose to just see it as my opinion, but NATO has a couple of articles formulated especially to deal with aggression like this. To posit that joining an alliance - which didn't happen, another simple fact - because you are afraid of your aggressive neighbor is the cause of the aggression is a pretty extreme form of victim blaming.

> My point is that we don't get to feel good about violence because it's against the right guys.

Believe me, I'm a pacifist at heart. And what's happening now in Ukraine (and prior to that in Chechnya) makes my blood boil. I've seen first hand what life under Russia looks like, there is no way this is going to be whitewashed.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#145

Post by mschuster91 »

colordrops wrote: post #7
cdot2 wrote: post #5

So essentially the problem is they're sticking to their "violence is bad" policy when in this specific situation violence is maybe not bad.

Or maybe violence is still bad.

The only party committing violence here is Putin and his cronies, the guy doesn't even have the backing of the Russian society - he's been ruling by fear for many years now.

To stand aside and claim "violence is bad" while someone is attacked is supporting the attacker, not the innocent attacked.

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#147

Post by user-the-name »

keymone wrote: post #140
belter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same Bitcoin will be used by Russia to avoid sanctions.

Let them. Bitcoin is about freedom.

"Bitcoin is about freedom", you say as a response to Bitcoin being used to fund an invasion? How do you not see the absurdity of this claim?

Re: On the removal of Come Back Alive

#148

Post by pokot0 »

ejb999 wrote: post #126
cloverich wrote: post #82

Does Patreon have ties to Russia that are relevant here, or is this purely a principled move based on their terms?

principled move? Which principles were they following? the principles that made it OK for 8 years, or the principles were they decided to side with Russia's agressions once the real invasion started.

I guess the principle is "it's bad for business". Every corp prioritizes business by design, it's irrational to expect ethical behavior (unless it's good for business).
Post reply on HN