this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
608 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19228 readers
3133 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rottingleaf 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As a general rule, losing a big chunk of your youth population is horrible for a whole host of reasons. Hell, a brutal war of attrition on the Russian border was what ultimately brought down the Romanov Government. The Bolsheviks were (somewhat paradoxically) militant anti-war activists.

I meant that the losses may not have the same proportion of various groups or intelligence as in the general population, so, for example, if only RG and FSO troops were sent there and were dying there, it would be arguably a positive result.

However, this is not what's happening, people from poorest and most depressive places and social layers go there, which means that while many of them will die, some will get back with combat experience. Lots of crime.

Nothing paradoxical in that, about bolsheviks.

I don’t exactly predict another October Revolution soon. But the long term health and wellness of the Russian Federation is degraded with every month of utterly fruitless artillery exchanges. Ukraine ain’t doing too hot, either.

Well, see, it wasn't going to be good anyway. Those people who've ran from Russia to the West and pretend to be good and civilized were able to play opposition exactly because they were compromising on some old issues (like Chechen war, lustrations and crimes of the Soviet state), and they were mostly people with relatives from Soviet and modern Russian elites. By the way, elites in Baltic countries are from the same flock, and seeing Kaja Kallas in EC is kinda intimidating.

Real opposition back then was simply murdered or defamed on federal TV or even put into prisons and asylums, some just died of old age. There's very little remaining from them and their political ideas and points. Again, Starovoitova, Novodvorskaya, Politkovskaya, Sakharov, one can go on.

Note how those being arrested for sabotage or protest in Russia over the last two years don't have anything in common with the opposition of the Sobchak kind. And they have some similarities with those people who were successfully dealt with in the late 90s.

Navalny's organization was better, but they sadly stained themselves by associating with that "fashion opposition" of 2012 too. This may be the reason they didn't succeed. People may not say anything, not even think anything, but feel vary over such associations.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Are we really doing eugenics on war dead?

[–] rottingleaf 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Always. Have you not read anything about Roman army in frankly any period?

Anyway, I'm not doing eugenics, I'm thinking how those losses affect society in general because they are not even close to equally distributed.

By the way, since I mentioned RG and FSO troops - I don't think those have been sent to war in any significant numbers.

Maybe that's Putin's way to postpone civil war or revolution - send to grinder those who'd fight against him.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Have you not read anything about Roman army in frankly any period?

Ah, you're one of those. Thinking phrenology is 2500 years old.

[–] rottingleaf 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, the poor were always preferred to be sent to die in wars. Which is what I'm talking about, I'm not responsible for what your associations are.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the poor were always preferred to be sent to die in wars.

That's not actually true