Well, I sincerely doubt people in any western country were particularly fond of black people at the time. However, the country you are from is hardly important.

The point is, that the views that prompt you to call these people nazis were also held by people that dealt with the nazis.

80 years ago, most people in your country did not have a much more favourable view of black people.

The word “fascist” does not mean “person I do not like”.

This doesn’t make any sense. My person has nothing to do with this.

Leftists that support rehabilitative justice, oppose the police and prisons, turn into Hitler when someone commits a minor offence against a group they favour. How does that work?

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?

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.

Moral objectivism and Rand’s objectivism are two completely different things.

Rand’s philosophy is opposed to traditional morality.

They feel like it’s wrong so it needs to be illegal.

They believe it to be immoral, so they want it to be illegal, yes. Is that not how people usually decide what should be legal and what shouldn’t?

Also, it seems disingenuous to say that

No amount of death or suffering of real live people is as important as their idea of a person.

I would say one can be opposed to abortions, and still care about other people. Clearly.

The state already regulates which practices may or may not be performed by doctors. This is hardly different.