My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.

[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You said appeasement.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point?

[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism?

If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy.

[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression.