chat

8245 readers

453 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net

ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

Sulvor@hexbear.net

PaX@hexbear.net

Is saying obvious American proxies doing things for America denying whole people's their agency? (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 weeks ago by SkingradGuard@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm wondering what our take on this is.

Here's an example on libsky . It reads as genuinely frustrated. However I've seen this same line trotted out by NAFO about Ukraine and how it's impossible it's being directed by the US Government, because people have agency (making it Russian propaganda/"shallow analysis").

I feel like there's a small point being made, obviously not all groups funded by America/American proxies are incapable of acting alone.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Barx@hexbear.net 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean of course it is, but the only question is whether it is true. Whole peoples can be backed by a group and thereby lose agency due to their influence. But more typically it is not whole peoples, it is a subset, and they achieve outsized power due to funda from the outside group. This will have undermined the agency of everyone else.

IMO agency discussions are usually bad faith liberalism trying to avoid discussing the material forcea of geopolitics. Sometimes it is valid, but usually it isn't.

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 6 points 2 weeks ago

IMO agency discussions are usually bad faith liberalism trying to avoid discussing the material forcea of geopolitics. Sometimes it is valid, but usually it isn't.

Yeah that was my gut feeling too, extremely bad faith.