Exactly. In fact, my nation was genocided so hard by the Russians, we don’t even know it happened.

The point is, that there is not necessarily a desire to leave. You are generalising unnecessarily.

Precisely.

And this is why a lot of peoples did not, in fact, fight a war of independence against Russia.

And the Chechens, for instance, wanted independence because they were subjected to a genocide by the USSR when it was ruled by a Georgian, so this is hardly a usual case for the ethnic minorities, since most of them were not genocided.

This is simply not correct. Quite a lot of people would prefer not to separate from Russia.

There are no wars now.

The wars happened when the central government was too weak to deal with them, which supports my point somewhat.

Well, I believe that without Russia, Russian Caucasus will be a worse place overall, and will also have a few wars.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are also worse off than they would be had they remained in Georgia.

It seems to me that this sort of nationalism is counterproductive.

But is this not irrelevant? It seems to me that you believe that North Ossetia should be independent, despite the fact that Ossetians do not want independence from Russia, and South Ossetia should not be independent, despite the fact that South Ossetians would rather not be a part of Georgia.

You mentioned the invasion of Georgia, and it seems from the context like you believe it to be an injust invasion. Is this correct? Do you believe Georgia is entitled to the land it lost?

Well, yes. Maybe I should have phrased it differently: the “balkanisation of Russia”, like actual balkanisation, will be associated with a series of conflicts and deaths, if it does occur.

Also, genocidal is an overstatement. I do understand that using strong words like “fascism” and “genocide” when they are unwarranted is somewhat in fashion now, but believe it is best not to do that.

Yeah, but it is going to be even worse. Russian Caucasus is going to have a few wars at least, hell, it did happen to an extent when the federal government was weak. There are territorial disputes and conflicts that are only suspended for as long as these republics are a part of Russia.

So my point stands: there are reasons to be opposed to the “balkanisation of Russia” and no reasons to support it, unless you want that because you just want to hurt Russia, but in this case be honest with yourself and do not pretend you are doing it for the ethnic minorities.

I am not sure if you remember but the process of “balkanisation” was accompanied by certain unfortunate events, that included a genocide, the bombing of Belgrade, among others. Corruption is not the biggest problem here.

The Balkans are not exactly doing well, are they?

Even if they did separate, there would still be a Russia, and it would not lose as much as one might think.

And even so, it is a bad idea. There are so many disputes between the nations, that we would likely see a few wars. Something like what is happening between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also, many of them are too small to exist in a meaningful was as independent countries, and I honestly don’t see the harm in them remaining in Russia.

What should it be then?

A right wing European is also a little too right wing for Lemmy.

If the company fails, the responsibility for that is not on the workers. Why would they care if it does, if they can just extract all of the money for themselves?

The responsibility for managing the company should be on the people that are responsible for the company itself.

This is not to say, that they should not be represented in decisionmaking, they probably should, but since they do not own the organisations that employ them, they have no right to dictate how they should be run.

Quite a lot.

Trump us destroying the international standing of Israel’s strongest ally, this should count for something.

So Trump is a real friend of Palestine, you should say thank you.

I would add, that the old testament has been interpreted allegorically since before Christianity, since in the Roman Empire, Jews that were civilised had some difficulty accepting the rather nonsensical elements of the archaic books.

This sort of makes sense. The bible is a collection of books that are very different in style, so it makes sense that some are understood poetically, or allegorically, while others are quite literal.

So these seemingly silly elements of the bible were literally never understood literally by Christians, until the reformation, at least.

So while it may seem like modern Christians are trying to reinterpret the bible to avoid contradictions, that are caused by the idiocy of the ancient and medieval people, the reality is literally the exact opposite.

Well, sorry for the accusation. AI usually gives these bullet points when prompted.

Christianity is a child of the Jewish mysticism and Greek rationality. For someone that understands philosophy the idea of a god with a body, that looks like a human is absurd.

God is not in space, not in time, since according to Christian theology, these were created with the universe, so they are not independent from the creation. Before that(not in the temporal sense), there was only God.

Are these AI bullet points, lmao?