The Russian commander of the “Vostok” Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukraine will not be defeated and suggested that Russia freeze the war along current frontlines.

Alexander Khodakovsky made the candid concession yesterday on his Telegram channel after Russian forces, including his own troops, were devastatingly defeated by Ukrainian marines earlier this week at Urozhaine in the Zaporizhzhia-Donetsk regional border area.

“Can we bring down Ukraine militarily? Now and in the near future, no,” Khodakovsky, a former official of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, said yesterday.

“When I talk to myself about our destiny in this war, I mean that we will not crawl forward, like the [Ukrainians], turning everything into [destroyed] Bakhmuts in our path. And, I do not foresee the easy occupation of cities,” he said.

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

[–] UnicodeHamSic@hexbear.net 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? I said I don't like America. How did you get it backwards?

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

America is a plutocracy which accepts queerness in its federal law. Your gotcha went too broad.

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

which accepts queerness in its federal law.

Bwahahaha

Oh wait you're serious

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Mate. Respect for Marriage Act 2022 is a federal law protecting same sex marriages. It's there. It's fact. Bwaha etc.

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Respect For Marriage act of 2022 requires ONLY that states recognize existing same sex marriages. If Obergefell was overturned tomorrow, zombie laws kick in over a good chunk of the country banning same sex marriage. And Roberts as well as Thomas both opposed Obergefell.

And that's not evne getting into the fact that you're sitll only talking about a single piece of legislation which ONLY requires that states recognize such marriages, it does absolutely nothing besides that. Which means that it is not only inadequate in what it does to protect queer marriage, but also that it's a very minor piece of legislation in the grand scheme of queer discrimination.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not the point. I feel I've already answered your argument in other comments. If you don't agree, please let me know why and I'll happily address it.

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have done nothing to address the argument actually.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok. I did ask you to explain why?

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I pointed out that the specific law you talk about does not in fact "Protect same sex marriages", the act does absolutely nothing to stop states from banning same sex marriage, and that even if it did that it only covers a tiny aspect of queer discrimination. The act does not demand that states accept queerness, it does not demand that all states allow or protect gay marriage, it does not prevent states from banning same sex marriage, it does none of that. ALL it does is say that Texas can't say a New York marriage is invalid because the people involved are of the same sex.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean that's just completely false. The Act requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.

From the Act:

Congress finds the following: ((a) In General.--No person acting under color of State law may deny-- (1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or (2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

Seems pretty clear, no?

Again I'm not trying to say this is a fait accompli and we can just sit back on our laurels and consider it done. But it's a hell of a lot better than Russia's law.

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean that's just completely false

No, it's completely right and quoting a bit about how im right is an odd choice.

Again. What I said was this

ALL it does is say that Texas can't say a New York marriage is invalid because the people involved are of the same sex.

To which you respond with the text of the law stating that the law bans any government employee from not recognizing a marriage from another state on the grounds that its a gay marriage. At this point you are either trolling or acting in such bad faith you may as well be.

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

. At this point you are either trolling or acting in such bad faith you may as well be.

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"No u" isn't the argument you think it is. But given your arguments so far, I'm hardly surprised this where you ended up.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yikes-1 yikes-2 yikes-3

Someone else is going to have to explain the ignorance present in this statement for I do not have the time or energy, could one of our cishet hexbears be a good ally?

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You are incapable. That is because the comment is factually correct. US Federal law has protections for queerness. The cited law proves it. What point are you trying to make exactly?

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (34 children)

The long and short of it is that legalizing gay marriage isn't even a strong step to lgbt liberation, it is literally just tepid assimilationism. We are only "accepted by federal law" in most narrow and on their terms sense. Call me when the US government federally covers trans Healthcare, makes conversion torture a federal crime, deals with the queer(especially child) homelessness problem, and purges the people calling us all pedophiles.

Also, learn some fucking humility.

load more comments (34 replies)