Eisel's use of faulty comparisons to oversimplify problems.

[NonZeroSum]

-

Faulty Comparison

(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, inconsistent comparison [form of])

Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

Example #1:

Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!

Explanation: While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to the false comparison.

Example #2:

Religion may have been wrong about a few things, but science has been wrong about many more things!

Explanation: We are comparing a method of knowledge (science) to a system of belief (faith), which is not known for revising itself based on new evidence. Even when it does, the “wrongs” are blamed on human interpretation. Science is all about improving ideas to get closer to the truth, and, in some cases, completely throwing out theories that have been proven wrong. Furthermore, the claims of religion are virtually all unfalsifiable, thus cannot be proven wrong. Therefore, comparing religion and science on the basis of falsifiability is a faulty comparison.


---

In Eisel’s case

Against Anarchism (In Principle and in Practice, esp. “Left Anarchism”)

Example: [On Anarchism] So someone could challenge me, I'm steal-manning Theo's position here to say well look even if you don't subscribe to this long term more utopian idea of where this is going to, and even if you don't agree with this in principle, in this sense, can't you see some short-term benefit in anarchism here and now, in the same way that I can see a benefit in charity. . .

And if I argued back pointing out the relative historical triviality of libertarianism, look this isn't really a major influential political philosophy, but if on a scale of one to ten, if we rate libertarianism like a three out of ten, then left-wing anarchism is a zero, it has no significance at all.

Explanation: The pragmatic goals of right or left-wing anarchists would simply be to win people over to transitionary policy steps through left or right-wing libertarianism. So the logical comparison to make would be comparing support between opposing wings of anarchism or libertarianism, not one against the other.

---

China is Right About Xinjiang.

Example: [On Xinjiang] Is it fair to say that this is cultural genocide? My answer to that question is yes, this is cultural genocide, but we should say in the same breath without any hypocrisy that what the government of the United States of America attempted to do in Afghanistan also was cultural genocide.

So even if we examine the cultural project that the United States embarked on and compare it to the cultural project that the government of China is embarked on, we have to say the body count for what China is doing and how it is doing it is much much lower, the negative impacts are much more limited.

Explanation: The cultural heritage being destroyed in Afghanistan, if we can even call it genocide really was only aimed at disarming the movement of rural Pashtun’s who chose to take up arms only 10 years earlier, naive though that aim was. Rules of engagement listed mosques as protected buildings and a conservative Islamic government was put in place. China on the other hand is locking up millions, bulldozing it’s towns and mosques, subsidizing settlers to move in on mass and take coordinator positions all in an effort to brainwash the people into thinking of themselves as more like Han Chinese who should praise the state for their glorious history. So the level of cultural destruction is played up in the Afghan case to appear more equal and suffering as a result is played down in the Chinese case to appear better.

---

Civil Disobedience is the Opposite of Democracy.

Example: Do you think Israel should be ruled by the sober judgment of a hundred percent of the population participating in a democracy where they have to stand up and make rational arguments where they believe in and consider the law of the Constitution and people get to vote and all this stuff [In short…] do you think it should be a procedural rational democracy involving everyone OR do you think that a small minority of religious fanatics should just be able to go and engage in civil disobedience?

. . . Civil disobedience is rule of your society by the most militant minority.

Explanation: The emotive language used in the comparisons are chosen to motivate the listener into not noticing the false dilemma presented, there are obvious degrees of punishment a government can bring down on people breaking the law, any direction the society goes in for either not controlling or bowing to protesters demands is still the moral culpability of the government and those who participated in the party political process. There is an obvious legal and moral difference between victimless civil disobedience aimed at all people being treated equally in society like collecting salt from the sea or staying seated on the bus, to that of stealing another countries resources against international law.

---

Communism, Etic vs. Emic Perspectives & Youtube Censorship. (Vs. NonCompete)

Example: We're not living through a period of time in which the right-wing can openly present neo-Nazi propaganda or can openly present fascist propaganda, they do so covertly and periodically we have scandals in the Western press when the covert nature of their messaging gets exposed this kind of thing is ongoing but I'm about to show you just a couple of clips of communists overtly discussing and marketing communism and talking about an even demonstrating view a little bit how they make excuses for the history of mass murder these videos are not demonetized these videos are not suppressed or deleted by YouTube whereas right-wing groups face constant threat of their Twitter or being deleted their YouTube channel being deleted their freedom of expression shut down this type of left-wing extremist propaganda YouTube considers itself a neutral platform for:

Hello and welcome to how to market bread communism (bread referring to the anarcho-communist book; The Conquest of Bread). . . let's see here's a study using World Bank data which found that socialist countries had higher quality of life than capitalist countries when controlling for a level of economic development using criteria such as life expectancy literacy daily caloric intake and access to higher education or housing or what about this Oxfam America report on Cuba which details the achievements of the Cuban Revolution. . . basically my point is this behind the assumption that every attempt at communism just naturally failed because communism has contradictions within it that causes it to fail that ignores the influence capitalist interventionism has had on attempts at communism and it ignores the positive aspects of these nations that we should strive for.

Explanation: These anarchist youtubers go to great lengths to explain how they’re in contention over the linguistic definition of the word and how Marxist states have resulted in the hunting down and killing of anarchists before. The context of the clips is simply talking about the positive goals in history of states which because of their in part socialist ideology secured universal rights to the betterment of their people. Like managing universal healthcare in Cuba despite relative poverty compared to wealthy states like the US whose citizens don’t enjoy this right. The comparison should have been made between actual covert Marxist communists, who are small in number on YouTube, with small followings OR comparing left-libertarians and right-libertarians who try to unpick the association between their goals and fascists, a disturbingly easier enterprise in our current political climate, despite their past and present close co-operation.


---

Full Contexts

Against Anarchism (In Principle and in Practice, esp. “Left Anarchism”)

So someone could challenge me, I'm steal-manning Theo's position here to say well look even if you don't subscribe to this long term more utopian idea of where this is going to, and even if you don't agree with this in principle, in this sense, can't you see some short-term benefit in anarchism here and now, in the same way that I can see a benefit in charity, here and now, like hey right now we can form a charity to accomplish some things for veganism, or to help the homeless, or help the poor cope with the earthquake, whatever that the purpose might be or there's some clear benefit here and now that makes me overlook both what's wrong with this ideology in principle and in terms of its long-term implications?

For me it's very easy to answer no for anarchism, within that framework I see more value short-term in basically any other mainstream political ideology you could name, there's more that could be accomplished by joining the Conservative Party in 2019 you know within our lifetimes pragmatically than could possibly be accomplished by joining any of the anarchist factions that now exist, so this is a stepping away from matters of principle and into pragmatics, I think it's really important to note.

The single most famous and celebrated left anarchist or left-wing anarchist during my lifetime was Noam Chomsky is there anyone in anarchist politics today who is more significant than Noam Chomsky is there anyone whose opinion matters as much as boy hard to think of a good example here I was gonna say something like Bernie Sanders but that's probably setting the bar far too high yeah.

Okay to put it in perspective this way, if you've been watching this channel for a long time, you've heard me criticize the ideologies of libertarianism pointing out that libertarians on the internet really feel that they are major influential political ideology in the world, that they are a philosophy, that they're an approach to politics that needs to be taken seriously in any given political debate.

And if I argued back pointing out the relative historical triviality of libertarianism, look this isn't really a major influential political philosophy, but if on a scale of one to ten, if we rate libertarianism like a three out of ten, then left-wing anarchism is a zero, it has no significance at all.

---

China is Right About Xinjiang.

Is it fair to say that this is cultural genocide my answer that question is yes, this is cultural genocide, but we should say in the same breath without any hypocrisy that what the government of the United States of America attempted to do in Afghanistan also was cultural genocide.

Since the year 2001 as is well known the United States of America embarked on an unbelievably inefficient military campaign to eliminate what could be simply called the culture of the Taliban, the Taliban were a government, they were a religious movement and they were representatives of a culture that had really significant depth and breadth of adherents it to a large extent represented the people of the countryside of Afghanistan they all participated and the United States with enormous military force and an enormous budget attempted to destroy that culture, to marginalize that culture within its own territory what they were trying to do was eliminate that culture forever and any talk about replacing the Taliban with moderate Islam is really propaganda of a very self-serving type and likewise the same propaganda doesn't make more sense or left less sense if you now attributed to the government of China and pretend that the government of China is just trying to replace extremism with moderate Islam such excuses and justifications exist everywhere

Now the American effort in Afghanistan has had an unbelievably large body count and it still continues to have an unbelievably large body count, month by month, year by year. I would urge you to take the time to read the annual reports and the monthly reports the United Nations publishes on just how many people have been killed and still are being killed in Afghanistan to this day. So even if we examine the cultural project that the United States embarked on and compare it to the cultural project that the government of China is embarked on, we have to say the body count for what China is doing and how it is doing it is much much lower, the negative impacts are much more limited, does that mean it's okay does that mean it's good does that mean that you or I or the so-called international community are going to stand up and applaud cultural genocide in one scenario any more or any less than the other?

tell you one thing the war in Afghanistan could be described as a war in which the richest country in the world laid siege to some of the poorest people in the world namely the Taliban and the richest country in the world bankrupted itself in the effort not just to exterminate a particular group of fighters not a particular battalion of soldiers the richest country in the world bankrupted itself trying to commit an act of cultural genocide against the Taliban to lead there not just one set of religious views but the whole culture that provided the the bedrock for you know terrorism to flourish on that was what they wanted to eliminate and they failed everyone knows that if the United States now withdraws its military presence the presence from Afghanistan the Taliban will resume control of that country the methods Communist China is using now go ahead and compare them to what Canada did to Canada's own indigenous peoples go ahead and compare them to what the Americans did to America's indigenous peoples and draw your own conclusions and make the comparison between both brutality and the outcomes of what China is doing in cynjohn and what America has been doing in Afghanistan we're all going to have to reflect five years from now ten years from now 15 years from now on what China did in cynjohn as one of the first examples in the history of the world of militant atheism being put into practice of a government openly saying to one group of its citizens either you become members of a modern secular society or else you will live in internment camps forever and when it's defined that precisely it has to be said that what China is doing is fundamentally unlike any other example of cultural genocide we've seen before and what they're doing is partly an educational process and it is partly a vocational training process and it is partly a process of building new schools and just improving the quality of services offered to people in cynjohn there is both a carrot and a stick to the method if you look at details the carrot is just as real as the stick it's there to be there to be studied and there to be learned from and you can compare that to what the United States of America did in Afghanistan where they just dropped bombs and told people to surrender and told people to participate in a democratic process that they from their culture and in their set of religious beliefs a democratic process they didn't believe in that they've regarded as evils on and so forth you can see just how grim the outcomes of the American intervention are even with a budget in the trillions of dollars if you are to judge what China is doing now as bad in its methods bad and it's means bad and its motives bad in its outcomes well well there's a very interesting reckoning to be made if we look at how the United States France England how the so-called international community has been dealing with Muslim extremism in Afghanistan in Africa with examples like Boko Haram both in terms of the brutality and in terms of the outcomes cultural genocide a re-evaluation in the 21st century

---

Civil Disobedience is the Opposite of Democracy.

Do you think Israel should be ruled by the sober judgment of a hundred percent of the population participating in a democracy where they have to stand up and make rational arguments where they believe in and consider the law on the Constitution and people get to vote and all this stuff [In short…] do you think it should be a procedural rational democracy involving everyone OR do you think that a small minority of religious fanatics should just be able to go and engage in civil disobedience?

Have you heard of the settlers in Israel that's one of the most successful examples of civil disobedience in the world let me tell you something settler is a very strange euphemism for what they've done in the last four years something like that yes a highly motivated especially religiously defined fanatical minority can push around the whole of society can lead that society into Wars and can prevent that society from fighting a war Israel must be one of the most disturbing examples in the world but people want to use this term selectively so that you're only talking about civil disobedience when you're talking about people in India resisting the British Empire and they don't want to talk about civil disputes don't want to use this term when you're talking about Zionist Jewish fundamentalists extremely religious people in Israel going out and basically stealing land in the West Bank it's illegal what they're doing even under the law of Israel let alone under the law of the West Bank Palestinian transitional authority and this kind of stuff that is civil disobedience civil disobedience is rule of your society by the most militant minority in Israel who do you think that is in Afghanistan who do you think that is I'm not going to claim to you that 55 percent of the population are always right and that the minority is always wrong I would I would never make that claim that's preposterous sometimes the majority in society is going to be wrong but the process of making that decision whereby the evidence is presented the it's our Wade speeches are made there were rational arguments and counter-arguments and then we vote okay so are we gonna have are we gonna have vaccines for everyone you know there's a scientific case there's a moral case there probably are economic considerations okay we've made this decision 65 percent of us have decided that a hundred percent of us should be vaccinated the moral opposition of just five percent can bring the whole of society to its knees if you believe in civil disobedience and I don't

---

Communism, Etic vs. Emic Perspectives & Youtube Censorship. (Vs. NonCompete)

We're living through an interesting period of time in which one end of the political spectrum is being censored and suppressed by social media by the internet in a way that the other end of the political spectrum is not my own political views and values are left-of-centre so I see the harm done by the left-wing extreme much more than I see the harm done by the right-wing stream I'm constantly meeting and talking to people who have been seriously damaged and misinformed by communist propaganda um but we're not living through a period of time in which the right-wing can openly present neo Nazi propaganda or can openly present fascist propaganda they do so covertly and periodically we have scandals in the Western press when the covert nature of their messaging gets exposed this kind of thing is ongoing but I'm about to show you just a couple of clips of communists overtly discussing and marketing communism and talking about an even demonstrating view a little bit how they make excuses for the history of mass murder these videos are not demonetized these videos are not suppressed or deleted by YouTube whereas right-wing groups face constant threat of their Twitter or being deleted their YouTube channel being deleted their freedom of expression shut down this type of left-wing extremist propaganda YouTube considers itself a neutral platform for hello and welcome very much to marketing how to market bread communism hello your friendly neighborhood radical reviewer here have you heard that communism has never worked that communism always fails that communism kills people I knew we can look at like a number of communist governments that have failed miserably at a point my communism is bad but is this true well countries embark on various economic projects in various parts of the world at various times in our history so it's difficult to make such a categorical statement as communism has never worked in fact one could easily argue that since these various countries had States and did not have worker control of the means of production then by definition they were not communist let's take a look at key factor number two downplaying the achievements of communist experiments well let's see here's a study using World Bank data which found that socialist countries had higher quality of life than capitalist countries when controlling for a level of economic development using criteria such as life expectancy literacy daily caloric intake and access to higher education or housing or what about this Oxfam America report on Cuba which details the achievements of the Cuban Revolution basically my point is this behind the assumption that every attempt at communism just naturally failed because communism has contradictions within it that causes it to fail that ignores the influence capitalist interventionism has had on attempts at communism and it ignores the positive aspects of these nations that we should strive for so the next time someone argues that communism has never worked or that communism always fails or that communism killed 500,000 gazillion people recognize that they probably have no idea what they're talking about don't think about your you know small channel

controversy that I alluded to earlier of a right-wing group called identity Europa being exposed and the internet because their private messages were shared and the private messages revealed the extent to which they were really a respectable front for much more difficult to respect right-wing extremists because you know the main impact of that I mean you know what they're doing is not illegal in the United States the main impact is getting their Twitter shut down getting their social social media platforms like YouTube shut down getting demonetised and even some of the companies handling financial transactions and so on where those get shut down because companies say forget it if this is what you guys are preaching we don't want to do business with you we're definitely living in a period of time where that kind of scrutiny is being applied to one extreme on the political spectrum and not the other now I openly admit there isn't a simple solution how can we draw up standards that are applied fairly and consistently maybe the standard is if you're a lying about any historical event that involves the deaths of over a million people.


-

[NonZeroSum]

-

Eisel jumping to conclusions to feel suprerior

Found a perticularly hilarious example of Eisel not watching the video he's responding to to the end and making a response video critiquing the guy for burning a poster of Mao Zedong, which he in fact doesn't do and Serpentza gives the same reasons for not doing it that Eisel is supposedly critiquing him for doing.

So, Serpentza makes a video saying how he couldn't understand at first why chinese people don't reject putting up posters of Mao Zedong in the same way german people reject putting up posters of Hitler today, but he learnt to sympathise with the fact it's part of the culture to see him simply as a symbol who kept the country strong and indipendent.

Eisel's response; 'why would you burn a poster of Mao Zedong, you don't have any sympathy for the chinese people or their culture, you ignorant, unresearched, lazy fuck.' hahaha

Chairman Mao - Why do people worship this MURDERER? By Serpentza

04:40 - [The communist party are] very good at engineering what people think from a very young age through education and through various different social programs. People still believe that if it wasn't for him, China wouldn't be the way it is, people still believe that he's a great man who maybe made a few small mistakes and if you want to call a few small mistakes murdering millions of people, so be it.

11:10 - So at the end of the day, am I going to burn this portrait of Mao Zedong? No I'm not going to burn it and you all know why because I respect my Chinese friends, I respect my Chinese family and I respect Chinese people and their opinions, at least to a certain degree. And while I do not agree with everything that this man stands for - and why honestly if I could have met him in real life, just like most people say about you know taking out Hitler, if they met him in real life that's something I would have done - at the end of the day though because I do respect my Chinese friends, family and Chinese people, I will not burn this because it's distasteful, because it shows a massive lack of respect towards the Chinese people.

Against Serpentza, re: Chairman Mao's Portrait on the Wall. By Eisel

03:25 - So he had a video recently in which he featured himself burning a portrait of Mao Zedong. I guess I'll give the link below this video and currently that video has over 200,000 views, so I certainly can't hope to challenge that by reaching an audience of equal size and you know he's reaching that audience because he's telling people something they already want to hear. . .

04:55 - I am not in a position to say to people who put his poster on the wall this is all that Mao Zedong represents this is the only thing it represents and this is what it must mean to you. . .

-

I think it comes down to a trend of Eisel's to jump to conclusions about a persons position so that he can believe he has superiour positions to the person and mock them. It's part of a conspiracy mindset. Like believing with confidence the assasination of both Kennedy brothers was done by the CIA and that people like Abby Martin are government agents for Russia.

First the faulty comparison...

Eisel video:

[There was a civil war & independence referendum in favour of kurdish indipendence and so...] the opportunity for the Western powers to make their policy position clear on the future of the Kurds already came and went and it's not ancient history it was made absolutely clear to anyone paying attention in the year 2017 if there had been any doubt in your mind before what was the policy position of george w bush the future of kurdistan what was the position of barack obama on the future person anyone who even asked themselves this question knew the answer there never was any ambiguity. [Therefore it's unreasonable for leftists to use word like the US 'betrayed' the kurds for moving their troops out at the direct request of Turkey.]

When all they had to do is do nothing, just leave their troops training in their bases in Northern Syria, after the Kurds helped them defeat ISIS as a recruiting ground, training camp and propaganda outlet for attacks on the West.

And now the jump to conclusion...

Theo

@a-bas-le-ciel These two lectures answer well the questions of to what extent is the northern syrian federation secular and feminist:

The Kurdish Women’s Movement: On Revolution, Militarism and Body...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7RE69swFk

Islam and Ethnicity in the Kurdish Political Sphere in Turkey | LS...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXulxcuUKmI

Eisel

@Theo Oh yeah, right…

Take a look at the Qu'ran and the Hadith.

The Kurdish are muslim fundamentalists —they're only considered "secular" when compared to ISIS.

The title of this video is literally "The Kurdish Hezbollah"… WTF are you thinking, man?

The status of Kurdish women in Islam is relative to the status of all women in Islam: they're not going to reform the Qu'ran or the Hadith.

Either they're openly going to reject Islam, or else they are not.

Their appeals to "anarchism" and "feminism" are the most transparent fundraising propaganda: they will say ANYTHING to try to court support from western powers —and they do this with real desperation (being surrounded by enemies on all sides, in the muslim world).

At 19 min, "religious prayers as a form of civil disobedience". HA HA HA HA HA… you must be fucking joking…

Get your head examined, Theo.

All of the worst bullshit from Islam + all of the worst bullshit from Marxism + insincere propaganda + all of the worst bullshit from ethno-nationalism = what you're looking at here.

"The Kurdish Hezbollah"… right… the Iran-supported wing of this bullshit movement… got it… holy shit, you're supporting the wrong side of history here, Theo.

Those women in the propaganda photos you're sharing: do you think they have the sexual freedom to even kiss a man outside of wedlock? To even hold hands outside of wedlock? GTFO of here with this bullshit.

@23:00 openly admits that they were trying to establish Sharia law in the Kurdish areas of Turkey… oh, right, "SOCIALIST POLITICS" is the title you've put on this…

You are off your fucking rocker.

Theo

Wowzer. Didn't know I'd made such a strong claim deserving of ridicule.

The title of the video and lecture is "Islam and Ethnicity in the Kurdish Political Sphere in Turkey". I chose to include a caption of the lecturer's most recent book because that has been his main point of research over the last few years.

A movement within a majority Kurdish region which is obviously not something to be proud of, why I used it to throw an interesting counter to the surface level public's view.

The lecturer talks about how after ISIS bomb attacks that Hezbollah in Turkey were attacked by other Kurds because they were identified as similarly fundamentalist.

To summarize for anyone confused, the PKK (Turkey), YPG/YPJ (Syria) and PDKI (Iran) are the majority Kurdish autonomy movements in their respective countries. They all profess to be ideological left-communists, and talk a lot about policies they've implemented for workers and women's rights. They talk about only desiring semi-autonomy, to live partially up to 5 legal systems, their own policies and that of the 4 other countries that currently rule over the region they inhabit.

Hezbollah are Shia fundamentalists which have groups within Turkey and estimate roughly 200K Arab and Kurdish supporters. They talk about wanting a global Islamic State.

The KDP profess conservative ideology and have semi-autonomous rule over northern Iraq. They talk about wanting full independence.

I think the lectures above cite interesting research about the region, take from them what you like.

Eisel

@Theo I interpreted your submission of the link (and the headline you'd added, etc.) as indicating that you're still supportive of the (fictional) "Kurdish Anarchist Utopia" that you've been supporting for years, AFAIK, with zero irony.

"A movement within a majority Kurdish region which is obviously not something to be proud of, why I used it to throw an interesting counter to the surface level public's view."

Look, I don't know what the surface level public view may be: I know that fringe leftists and anarchists like yourself are broadcasting the idea that the Kurds represent a feminist, marxist, anarchist, utopian social movement —and they do not.

The speaker in the 2nd video sounds EXTREMELY NERVOUS to me, in trying to set out this jumble of self-contradictory ideological claims.

He mentions that they claim to represent all of these modernizing, westernizing ideals while, at the same time, just bluntly saying that some of the most powerful cultural tendencies (and most powerful armed groups) are muslim fundamentalist in nature.

The support from Iran is unlikely to rely on Shia only, in this case: I'm guessing there are Sunni Kurds who are desperate enough to work for/with Iran —as the Shia Kurds are a small minority.

But yes, in any case, this shows what a farce both the mainstream and the fringe-leftist perspective on the Kurds is.

I'm sick of left-of-center journalists like "Democracy Now" trying to represent the Kurds as the apotheosis of secular western values (feminism, socialism, etc. etc.), it's utterly out of touch with reality.

Turkey Moves to Crush Rojava, the Kurds’ Radical Experiment Based on Democracy, Feminism & Ecology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPJqCVj-Li0

^ They manage to get democracy, feminism and ecology all in the headline along with "Kurd"! Why not add "Marxism", "Islam", "Russian alliance", "Syrian support from Abbas" and "Iranian tactical alliance via Hezbollah" all to the same headline?

Theo

Headline is the original title of the podcast, thumbnail is the podcast, lecturers book and genre of podcast that I think is the most likely reason people will click on the video.

We've talked and laughed about many ironies like idle worship of Apo, international volunteers coming back with sex-negative views, etc.

Eisel

@Theo The headline you added = "Socialist Podcasts"

Theo

genre of podcast within the thumbnail aye.

Eisel

@Theo Such a joke, the entire American left-wing saying, "Please C.I.A., please conquer northern Syria! Please support our imaginary feminist utopia under Kurdish dominion!"

Unbelievable how susceptible people are to this kind of propaganda.
I guess the Tamils in the Sri Lankan civil war attempted something similar; the Karen in Mynmar attempted something similar, too, without success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomi_Revolutionary_Army

Maybe the left wing can go back to representing "Zomia" as an anarchist paradise when they're done with this bullshit.

Theo

It's entirely possible ISIS diminished the number of naive western pacifists in the world, I remember having a conversation with one when ISIS first started taking over and their joyous sadism was a big shock to their core beliefs.

I do think the alliance of countries which helped support the YPG/J defeat ISIS should have stayed. I don't think many Kurds were surprised when they dumped them again though.

-