This is preposterous, I tell you! Preposterous!

/hj virgin attempt at comedy vs chad cry for help but with a small sprinkling of spice

So I was talking to some lib some time ago about the Russia-Ukraine situation and he said that if the Ukrainian people wanted to join NATO they should, and invoked "self-determination".

I LOVE this argument. Oh, you like self determination? Let's then allow Donbass to secede. Hell, let's bring the Soviet Union back, minus the states that wanted to secede when the referendum was held. Then support the Chinese government instead of opposing it.

Is any one else extremely skeptical of people that are obsessed with seeking self determination for blacks, indigenous or whatever? They can never seem to define what they mean by this. They will claim to high heaven that it's not anti democratic or about property rights based on ancestry and blood quanta. But if it isn't this, then I have no fucking clue what they even mean.

Is there anything I could do? Is there a European political party that directly advocates for Assyrian independence/autonomy I could vote for? (Europe, France or Greece) Or an organization I could donate some money too?

This opinion is unpopular worldwide, especially in the international community. I think that the supposed “right” to “National Self Determination” is stupid. I hate anyone who supports it. For those who don’t known, this means that an ethnic group is entitled to its own nation. I think that this concept has enabled nationalism and this concept has devastated multicultural societies.

The entire world order is based around this idea, it’s even one of the stated core principles of the United Nations. This is the cause of so much civil war ethnic violence, Especially in Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East. When people think that their ethnic group is entitled to its own nation and they don’t get their way then it drives people to start rebellions and civil wars which tear apart their multiethnic societies.

Just think of all the recent ethnic violence between ethnic groups in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, Cyprus, etc. where idiots thought that their ethnic group deserves its own nation? Honestly what good has this “self-determination” and all the little ethno-states that have come out of it caused? There hasn’t been that much ethnic violence throughout history. No one has ever really given a damn about ethnicity and multiple ethnic groups have (usually) lived together in the same state. Multicultural/Multiethnic societies are the norm throughout history, especially in the Middle East.

A lot of contemporary political analysts for example say that Iraq for example is unstable because it has Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurdish people living in the same nation and there is so much sectarian (ethnic) violence between these three ethnic groups. Yet what the political analysts forget is that all throughout Middle Eastern history, there have been large multicultural societies where different ethnic groups have lived (usually) together just fine.

Liberals (in an international sense, not a US politics sense) push the idea of “National Self Determination” and then wonder why there is so much Nationalism. Liberals push an idea that promotes ethnic states and then wonder why there is so much Nationalism based around those ethnic states.

Ethnic separatists are enabled by liberals who romanticize the idea of “supposedly oppressed ethnic minority fights for freedom against evil majority ethnic group.” Ethnic separatists are NOT a good thing. I despise them. They tore apart Yugoslavia and many other impressive multiethnic societies.

I would also argue that the root caus

Motion to support the right of self-determination for Eastern European countries

This House notes that:

(1) Russia has amassed an invasion level force on the border with Ukraine amid heightened tensions between Russia and Europe / NATO.

(2) It is the position of the Ukrainian government and parliament that membership of NATO is a strategic foreign and security policy objective.

(3) At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the long held stance of the alliance that Ukraine’s membership of NATO will happen as part of their Membership Action Plan.

(4) Russia has demanded that certain countries be barred from membership to NATO, including Ukraine.

This House welcomes:

(1) Proposed talks this week at various forums between Russia and the West including a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council and meetings at the OSCE.

This House calls upon the Government to:

(1) Consult closely with our allies in Europe and North America at all levels to reach a diplomatic solution to the current crisis.

(2) Protect the right of self-determination of countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet bloc, ensuring they freely and democratically seek membership of NATO, Russia is not given the power to veto such an application.

(3) Prepare a package of military aid to Ukraine, with NATO and specifically the United States, to bolster Ukraine’s readiness for conflict should a diplomatic solution be unable to be found.

(4) Consider a summit between British and Ukrainian representatives to bolster our cooperation, building on successful cooperation between our two countries in the past.

(5) Agree to the principle of no decision about Ukraine without Ukraine.

This motion was written by The Right Honourable Sir Tommy2Boys KCT KG KT KCB KBE KCVO MSP. the Duke of Aberdeen, on behalf of Coalition! and is cosponsored by the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Liberal Democrats

Opening Speech - Tommy2Boys

Deputy Speaker,

This week will see one of the most important weeks for diplomacy since the end of the cold war. I am sure this whole house speaks with one voice when we say we wish negotiators well, and we hope a fair agreement can be reached which stops an armed conflict with Russia whilst also protecting the people of Ukraine and Eastern Europe’s rights to determine their own future.

This motion urges the government to take sev

The topic of self determination comes up quite frequently on this sub and mostly people don't seem to know what it means. The principle of self determination holds that a people living in a territory are entitled to a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour. The enforcement mechanism is that neighboring states may not attempt to divide the territory of a state meeting this criteria but may if it fails to meet this criteria. The UN exists to regulate these disputes since Germany's claims prior to the 2nd World War often started out as trying to protect Germany peoples, Soviet expansion was often based on protecting Slavic peoples...

The most common usage of self determination on this sub is the belief that Palestinians were entitled in the 1940s to establish an Arab state that made no pretense of representing the Jewish population in line with Arab Higher Committee's doctrines. In this theory "colonialists" don't have right, those are possessed only by "indigenous" or "native" peoples. Where which populations are subject to disempowerment, expulsion or slaughter for being colonialist and which populations have rightful ownership by virtue of being native or indigenous is to be determined by Western Leftists. This is obviously preposterous when phrased this way but for some reason is widely believed by many people who participate on this sub as well as within the I/P debate more generally. The reality is that Jews constituted people living in the territory who were being denied rights on the basis of race (non-Arab) or creed (Jewish vs. Muslim and/or Christian) and as such the Palestinians waived their claim to self determination with the position of the Arab Higher Committee.

There were 3 main points where this doctrine developed:

1. The USA Civil War
2. The fall of the Ottoman empire and Austria-Hungry especially in the Balkins.
3. The decolonization of Africa and Asia

In the USA Civil War put briefly both sides claimed to be democracies operating with consent of the governed. The North argued the Confederate States of America was not a legitimate government since it did not plausibly claim to represent all peoples in its territory. Hence their separation from the United States was entirely unlike the separation that occurred when the USA revolted from Britain.

The Balkins clarified the doctrine of self determination with regard to the inviolability of fr

They sound like perfect synonyms, if you ask me.

Thought of this while reading Lily Cade's disgusting commentary on Buck Angel, literally calling him "she/her", just because he has a fucking vagina. Like wow. Imagine that. A human being doesn't matter at all, only their body. They have no say whatsoever. No right to define themselves at all. Absolute totalitarian thinking.

All I can describe it as is “sex totalitarianism”; yet “gender critical” itself already implies that, doesn't it?

>Corporate wants you to tell the difference between these two pictures. > >They're the same picture.

I've been reading some communist works, this one in particular (which quotes Lenin and other Soviet announcements) and cannot understand what seems to me to be extreme inconsistencies. One chapter condemns separatism and nationalism, and the literal next chapter quotes a Soviet document that promises "The right of the nations of Russia to free self-determination including separation and the formation of independent states." For some reason, this one doesn't seem to apply to Jews, who are told to preserve aspects of culture, but to nevertheless assimilate into other nations.

Can someone help me understand this?

(As an aside, keep in mind I don't mean Israel — I mean Ashkenazi Jews within Russia, who formed an ethnically homogenous Yiddish-speaking group who lived in one area.)

When a peoples group wants to become independent and votes for its independence, according to the UN self determination of peoples clause, the rest of the country needs to vote for their independence too. For example, why would the rest of China need to vote on whether Hong Kong could become independent or not? Or Catalonia and Spain or Bavaria and Germany. If people want to be independent why can't we just let them? Why does it need the approval of peoples that are not part of that people group? Hoping on their good will and mercy is foolish.

“You can move out” yes but that looks like years of saving up. It also requires the therapy that they are paying for under medicare. It also involves the complicated relationship i have with my enabler and similarly victim mother who I don’t want to detach from, and my young brother who i want to be there for and keep safe.

“You can…” yes but no. I can “just go out and ignore them” in theory, but i cant. This is so fucking difficult to wrap my head around and to then explain to someone. At some point i figured out the lines of what i can and can’t get away with with controlling parents (even though i am of age) and accepted that there are things I can’t push myself to do for the sake of… my mental stability? For the years i am here while i save up and figure out how im going to become my own self dependent person, something they didn’t teach me, i want to get fucking by without deteriorating. When i say i cant is it just me feeling disempowered and helpless? I dont feel that way but I can’t figure out how to theorise it or explain it to myself.

“I am scared to” “i am scared of them” Then is it, ok i have to figure oht how to be fearless and not be scared of them so i can do things that I don’t out of fear? Money is a huge huge factor. I’m scared of being broke. I’m scared of ending up in the streets.

Is this placing the burden on the victim? But who else is going to do anything about it other than the victim? Its so confusing to me and if anyone has any resources/articles on this topic to share I’d appreciate it.

Walter Blaine, Master of Liturgies to the "Sakyong", has offered this essay on his view for the future of Shambhala, Letter on Self-Determination

In short, Shambhala is and always has been a Theocratic Monarchy. Anyone not on board with this foundational core should leave.

Evidence suggests leaving is good idea... https://shambhalalinks.blogspot.com/2019/09/httpswww.html

In the United States, American Indian higher education has been a history of learning methods imposed by the Europeans, which have tried to eliminate Indian culture and this.