GoodEye8

If you tell a joke and I start to word for word retelling your joke then I haven't stolen your joke? After all the joke still exists in your head.

If you have an excellent idea, for the sake of scale let's say it's a million dollar idea, but you don't have the means to realize that idea. Now let's say I heard of your idea and I can realize the idea and make millions off it. Have I stolen your idea? The idea still exists in your mind but it's no longer a million dollar idea because I already made millions from it.

If someone scrapes the web for your activity to create a profile of you (which is for instace what Facebook does) is that stealing your data? After all none of your data goes missing

Similarly if someone hacks your bank and takes your financial and personal data the bank holds, is it not stealing? Does it magically turn into stealing if after taking your data they delete all the data from the banks system? What if they encrypt it without deleting, effectively making the data impossible for the bank to use?

So it's okay to steal because someone else is stealing more than you?

WE'RE WATCHING YOU. SCUM.

We joined a platform founded and inhabited by Marxist leninists and checks notes ... Expected them to not support an authoritarian capitalist country. Is that really too much to ask?

Okay, are you saying that this is a case of mistaken identity? I dont get what you’re trying to claim.

I'm saying they took two factual things and then reasoned themselves to believe those things are connected. Which is exactly what you're doing here.

I treat the assumption as fact within my internal worldview because it is the only explanation I can think of for what happened and it has strong supporting evidence. We have records of them plotting, so they probably carried out their plot as it seems that what happened mirrored what their plot wanted.

You've taken two factual things and then assumed based on your beliefs that they must be connected. There's no evidence of them actually plotting a coup. I even gave you an alternative that very much suits what the leaked discussion was about.

Wait, did you not go over the list and look at the political history of everyone involved? It’s much more than one nazi.

Do your research and then take a second attempt at replying.

I'm not here to do your work lazyass. You said there are more, find your own proof and be more specific. Wikipedia dumps are not proof.

Feel free to provide proof.

Yes, it is extremely reasonable.

If John Smith talked about killing Jake Jones and was recorded, and then Jake Jones showed up killed as John Smith described he would be, then it would be reasonable to assume that John Smith killed Jake Jones. Jake Jones’ head could have just done that spontaneously, but it is unlikely.

It's how 4chan and Reddit decided Sunil Tripathi was the Boston marathon bomber. A bombing happened, someone knew Sunil had gone missing, images kinda looked similar, people wanted to find a connection so they made whatever connection they could find. He wasn't the bomber but people still started a witchhunt based on assumptions they thought were reasonable. So no, I don't think blindly taking assumptions as factuals is extremely reasonable.

Do you have an alternate explanation for them saying “we’re going to install the people we want and keep out the people we dont” and then that happening?

Without any further information I'd say they're just discussing ideas (in this case who should be in the government) to present to Yatseniuk with the goal of making sure Russia doesn't sabotage the movement. Nothing about it implies planning a coup.

Okay but there are neonazis in the Wikipedia article you linked about them

I'm going to need more specifics than an information dump. Outside of the Azov being in the military council (which I admit was my mistake for not noticing, and I'll get to why that's not proof) and Andriy Parubiy (who I wouldn't consider a Nazi because he been a target of that kind of disinformation campaign by pro-russian media) nobody else catches my eye.

As for the addition of Azov in that list. The council is not made up of territorial defense battalions, it's made up of leaders of volunteer battalions. Azov was at that moment a volunteer battalion which is why they were included, along with the other leaders of the volunteer battalions. He wasn't picked because he was neo-nazi, he was picked because he was leading one of the biggest volunteer battalions. The idea that the government is a neo-nazi government because the biggest political party in that government created a special body and that special body has one known neo-nazi is just bewildering. Look at how many hoops you have to jump through just to have some connection between neo-nazis and the 2014 Ukrainian parliament, and then tell me that is reasonable.

it would be reasonable to assume the Russians who talked about doing it did it if it furthered their geopolitical objectives.

Now you're word for word proving what I originally claimed. If something happened and another factual event happened, that may or may not be related, and you believe they're related then it's okay to make the assumption that asserts your belief.

But still, theyre described as a conservative nationalist party and split from the "Fatherland" party.

Conservative doesn't mean neonazi and maybe they split to be less radical?

Also the leader of Azov Battalion was on their military council. Hrmm.

I'm tired of constantly correcting you so I'm just going say wrong

Russian politicians were also talking how Russia should nuke Nevada test site, so I guess Russia has nuked America because the only thing required to make it true is someone talking about it.

The Ukrainian People's Party (Ukrainian: Українська Народна Партія; Ukrains'ka Narodna Partiya) is a political party in Ukraine, registered on Old Year's Day 1999 as the Ukrainian National Movement

For fuck sake, at the very least search for the right thing. not this, but this.

Of course you can't, because there's nothing you can provide except your belief that it is the way you want to believe.

You're literally proving my point. You've added nothing to factually prove the coup, you're adding assumptions to make the fact fit the narrative. Also Yats is not the leader of the Fatherland party, he used to be there but moved to People's front in 2014.

So, theyre all Russian talking points but theyre also all supported by evidence?

As if to prove my point... I said they're statements made around certain known fact, facts that don't really prove the statement. Like the "coup". Fact is that there was a discussion between Nuland and Pyatt, which proves US was in talks with the opposition. But the fact doesn't shine a light on the extent of their talks, including if they were plotting a coup or how much Ukrainians listened to them. To claim it was a coup you have to believe it was one topic of the discussions and the Ukrainians listened.

This is a thing that annoys me about liberal conceptions of bias. Everything is biased, the question is how factual things are.

I don't have problem understanding that things are biased. It's just odd how western narrative get criticism but Russian narrative is seemingly taken without question.

Yes, this is what we call discussing who should be in the puppet government. You'll note that they kept the moderate "we should be nuetral between the US and Russia" organizers out and brought the nazis in.

You just said the question is how factual things are, so factual proof that nazis were brought in? Because from the leak they were actually talking to keep ultranationalists like Tyahnybok out.