Have you ever considered using some of the time you spend repeating stuff over and over on actually investigating whether there’s evidence behind your claims?
Last time I asked for a source regarding the Uighur stuff he just banned me lol. I guess it works on a lot of people to just apply social pressure on made up shit with zero concern about what’s true or not.
Last time I asked for a source regarding the Uighur stuff he just banned me lol.
It’s so terrible that I don’t engage with fascists who argue in bad faith. I really should hand out more asspats for genocide denialism, shouldn’t I?
It’s cool how you can just make up a claim of genocide, then anyone who questions it at all is automatically a genocide denier and therefore a fascist and therefore operating in bad faith, and therefore it’s completely unnecessary to provide even a shred of evidence for anything. Very reasonable.
But that’s about what I’d expect from someone who denies the Sugondese Genocide, you fascist.
It’s cool how you can just make up a claim of genocide,
lmao
Sometimes I wonder, how could all those Germans believe white people were being genocide by Jews when there was precisely zero evidence of it? But the PugJesus reminds me, if someone, anyone tells you a genocide is happening, you are obligated to instantly, 100% accept it, and asking for evidence actually makes you the real fascist.
Still zero evidence presented, at all. You can look at the Palestinian genocide, for example, the one PugJesus is fine with, and see all kinds of images of the atrocities, ditto for the Holocaust, ditto for every actual genocide, and it’s trivially easy to present a mountain of evidence to deniers. It’s just the made up ones like this one or the white genocide myth that there’s zero evidence for, that the believers will never and can never present evidence and will only ever try to play rhetorical games and apply social pressure, while constantly dodging the actual facts. Fascists use the exact same tactics when pushing their false claims too.
You can look at the Palestinian genocide, for example, the one PugJesus is fine with,
lol
You really don’t have anything except a cookie-cutter response for a strawman of what non-fascists look like to you, huh?
Oh, so you’re not fine with that genocide? That’s great, because I’m not either, which is why I plan to vote third party. I assume you’ll join me in that, since you’re also not fine with it.
Oh, so you’re not fine with that genocide?
Wow, after calling this a genocide since even before the latest post Oct-7 phase of the war, you finally figured out that I’m not okay with Palestinian genocide! How quick you are on the uptake!
That’s great, because I’m not either, which is why I plan to vote third party.
“I don’t support genocide, so I’m going to support the candidate who’s most in favor of it” is a really funny way of opposing genocide, but about what I would expect from a fascist.
Voting third party in the US is still not going to change anything about the genocide in Palestine.
All you are really doing is increasing the odds of Trump winning, which would make you complicit in the total wipe out of Palestine and the destruction of democracy in the US when Trump gets to be dictator for a day. (using your logic)
The best part of that strategy is that makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something, which is really what matters.
Aaaaaand here come .ml folks denying genocide
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with denying that something is happening when there’s no evidence of it happening. You can use whatever social pressure or rhetorical tricks you want to paint me as a bad person, and downvote me all you want. At the end of the day, none of that matters because there’s no evidence, so I’m right and you’re wrong, simple as. If you think it’s more virtuous to believe nonsense than to base your beliefs on what’s actually true, you do you I guess, but I want none of that.
https://bjwa.brown.edu/28-1/the-rise-of-global-islamophobia-and-the-uyghur-genocide/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol15/iss1/6/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10281.pdf
https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
I could provide 20 more sources, but you get the point. Unless you are able to disprove every single one, you are the one who is wrong.
And there is a difference you know, if I am wrong, there is no genocide happening. And boy I wish I was wrong. If you are wrong, you are a genocide denying piece of garbage.
If you are wrong, you are a genocide denying piece of garbage.
No, that’s not how this works. There is no moral fault is disbelieving a claim because you haven’t been presented with adequate evidence. You might as well try to tell me that I’m a bad person for not believing in God. “Genocide denial” is not an inherently bad thing, even if the genocide were real, provided that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your claims do not get some special privilege to circumvent the proper process of investigation just because they are extreme or emotionally evocative. If anything, the fact that everyone on your side is so reliant on the emotional appeals and social pressure should be an additional reason to scrutinize your claims even harder.
The idea that you can just throw 20 sources at me and I’d have to disprove every single one is also incorrect, as that would be a gish gallop. If I told you there was definitive proof that the genocide was not happening in between the lines of James Joyce’s Ulysses, you would not be compelled to read the whole thing to tell me I’m wrong.
Now let's move on to your sources.
https://bjwa.brown.edu/28-1/the-rise-of-global-islamophobia-and-the-uyghur-genocide/
Rushan Abbas is a CIA agent who literally worked at Guantanamo Bay. She is not a credible source.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
This article is as long as a book, as far as I read, I saw no mention of genocide and the majority of it seemed to be hearsay from one person. You’re going to have to cite anything relevant.
Extensively cites noted crackpot and CIA asset Adrian Zenz, as well as random hearsay.
The only thing this one says is that the US State Department called it a genocide.
No mention of genocide.
Oh hey, it’s our old buddy Adrian Zenz again.
Maybe I should’ve clarified. When I asked for evidence, I didn’t mean:
-
Hearsay from random nobodies
-
The CIA
-
The US State department.
I meant things like what we’re seeing in Palestine. Or like the evidence for the Holocaust, or any other genocide that’s, you know, actually real.
But I’m highly skeptical that you read even a single one of your sources before linking them anyway, let alone actually investigating them.
Straight up denial of evidence is a certified tankie tactic
Denial of evidence
You mean thinking critically and doing due diligence into investigating sources as opposed to blindly accepting anything you’re told without question? Yes, that is a certified tankie tactic.
-
Maybe this could help. It’s the evidence from the Uyghur Tribunal.
Justification from their site on why they don’t go to International Court of Justice:
‘There is no such possibility not least because China/the PRC, although a signatory to and ratifier of the Genocide Convention, has entered a reservation against ICJ jurisdiction.’
What does this even mean lmao ?
It means China isn’t governed by the ICJ, despite being a ratifier. ICJ has no power in PRC.
ICJ is international law and as all international instance have no power in any country. This make no sense nor does this joke of a tribunal have any power in China aswell.
I used to believe this until I went on a hunt to support that belief with evidence.
It’s not there. The various news reports are a giant chain of references to other news reports.
Most of them ultimately reference one of a few sources.
Adrian Zenz is one of the most referenced “experts” on the “Uyghur Genocide”. He used to just write about Jesus https://www.amazon.com/Worthy-Escape-Believers-Raptured-Tribulation/dp/1449769063 until God sent him on a mission to take down China. His two big works are “the Xinjiang Cables” (which don’t say what he says they say) and a report where he interviewed about a dozen people for their opinions, took it as fact and extrapolated it to the entire population of Xinjiang.
There are also a series of papers from the ASPI. A quick look at their funding list makes it pretty obvious what their agenda is (tl;dr a bunch of defense contractors).
There was a pseudonymous Canadian law student, Shawn Zhang, who pretended to be a satellite image expert and “identified” a bunch of detention centers. According to him it’s easy to tell because you can see the barbed wire. I’ve looked at the images he claimed to reference and there’s no barbed wire.
Most of the rest of the “evidence” is from organizations which receive over 90% of their funding from the US government.
Is the UN a organization that’s too Westoid to accept?
The CCP bots and ops are getting weird.
It’s worse - they’re not bots, and most of them aren’t fooled by some mass CCP campaign. They’re just fascists, and will go to any length to simp for fascism.
The UN thing is a perfect way of finding out how serious someone is.
Genocide apologists will say “The UN did not call it a genocide,” or even stronger, “The UN determined it is not a genocide.” The thing they leave out is that the UN did call the treatment of Uyghurs crimes against humanity.
Seems like a pretty big thing for them to leave out, huh?
That’s because OP wasn’t talking about general “crimes against humanity”. They’re making the specific, and significantly stronger claim, of “genocide”.
Before going any further, can we at least agree that the treatment of Uyghurs by the government of China rises to the level of crimes against humanity?
So you’re saying that instead of addressing the issue at hand you want to start with a premise of “China bad.” and just go from there. Great.
That’s not even remotely what I said, implied, or believe. Would you like to respond to what I did say, or put words in my mouth?
It wasn’t the topic of the thread and it’s not germane to the question of evidence.
It is, at best, a distraction.
Twas a yes or no question
And all through the house
Not a tankie was answering,
Not even right now
The UN doesn’t claim there’s a genocide in Xinjiang. They’ve gotten flack from people who assume there must be a genocide and that the UN is lying.
It ultimately has nothing to do with “Westoid”. It’s all about the evidence. Mere claims of “having credible evidence” don’t count for much if they can’t produce it.
The UN doesn’t claim there’s a genocide in Xinjiang.
You know what that Wikipedia article has in common with all the other claims of a genocide in Xinjiang?
A complete lack of evidence.
Investigative methods The report was created by the United Nations through a thorough review of evidence documented by the OHCHR.[41] Several forms of evidence were considered in making the report, including interviews with several dozen people who lived in Xinjiang at the time that abuses had been publicly reported.[39][40] The report also focused its analysis on what the Chinese government had publicly stated contemporaneously with the reported abuses, including public Chinese government documents and laws promulgated at the time.[41][42] In May 2022, OHCHR commissioner Michelle Bachelet visited Xinjiang. Prior to her visit, she spoke with representatives of several NGOs that were concerned about the both human rights situation in Xinjiang and in China, more broadly. After arriving in the region, she talked to numerous government officials, academics, and civil society leaders.[41] However, due to opposition by China, the OHCHR was unable to conduct a more thorough investigation on-the-ground within the borders of the People’s Republic.[40]
Findings The report’s findings included that a large number of abuses had occurred within Xinjiang, corroborating academic research and public reporting on the abuses in the largely ethnic minority region.[40] The report concluded that human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang are serious and widespread.[43]
Arbitrary detention In the report, the OHCHR stated that reports that the Chinese government had arbitrarily detained Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims en masse in the Xinjiang internment camps were credible, specifying that the actions of the Chinese state amounted to deprivation of liberty and were undertaken in a discriminatory fashion.[39][44] Former inmates who were detained in Xinjiang stated that they had received beatings while strapped to a chair and described undergoing torture similar to waterboarding; the report also noted that there was credible evidence of torture within internment camps.[45] The report indicated that these abuses constituted widespread violations of human rights and that they may rise to the level of crimes against humanity.[44]
Forced labor The report found that the Chinese government’s labor schemes relating to what the government of China referred to as vocational training constituted discrimination.[39][44] With respect to whether labor schemes that China describes as poverty alleviation schemes have involved the coercion of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities into forced labor, the report stated that there was evidence that these schemes did indeed involve coercion of laborers.[42][45]
Sexual violence and sterilizations The OHCHR described reports of sexual violence targeted at Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims within the Xinjiang internment camps as credible.[39] Women interviewed by the United Nations described being orally raped by prison guards and being forcibly subjected to examinations of their genitalia in front of large crowds.[40] The report also noted that there was an “unusually sharp rise” in the amount of intrauterine device insertions and sterilizations performed in Xinjiang and stated that the Chinese government used coercive means to sharply lower the birth rate of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.[44]
No evidence to see here, the UN is just a globalhomo conspiracy or whatever the latest fascist line is.
Is there any evidence in that wall of text or just a bunch of claims to have seen evidence?
I don’t need than kind of nonsense for an actual genocide because there are mountains of primary evidence.
Fun fact about Wikipedia:
Those numbers in brackets are reference numbers. At the bottom of the article they’ll be listed out (you can actually click the number and it’ll take you right to the footnote) with links to those sources
who let these commenters on the internet? jesus christ i can barely read have the shit that’s being posted here.
At least be grammatically correct when fascist posting.
i can barely read have the shit that’s being posted
At least be grammatically correct
LMAO.
It was probably written like that to be ironic, but don’t count me on that.
we do a little bit of trolling
Don’t forget those who support the genocidal ethnostate known as israel.
you are now banned from: worldnews@lemmy.ml; hexbear.net; lemmygrad.ml
Those are all badges of honor. Of which I’ve only achieved one.
those are rookie numbers, you gotta get those numbers up man
Thankfully this instance is defederated from hex and grad. So there’s no way I can at this point LOL. Not that anyone really has to try. One only has to act rational around them and point out when they’re behaving irrationally.
Nothing of value was lost.
Had this discussion with a friend today, because the Confederation of German Trade Unions (the umbrella-organization of all German Unions), which he works for, and lots of other workers-rights and left-wing organization, along with the Alliance for Peace are having an anti-war-day on September 1st in my region with concerts and demonstrations and stuff.
And some groups (but not all) from that alliance are having a public demonstration for a ceasefire in Gaza (which is good) and in Ukraine (which is bad) where they will criticize the German military help for Ukraine and demand peace with Russia by making Ukraine cede territory to Putin.
The “all war are bad and everyone must immediately stop” crowd has brain rot. They don’t understand that some people have no choice but go to war, because they are being invaded.
It probably aligns with the kind of thinking that can assume the MIC produces only defense and protection: under certain parameters they’re right but under others it can be quite naive.
If all wars were stopped, how would they be invaded?
Because there will always be humans who don’t follow the rules and take what they want.
The link between poor material conditions and crime is well-documented. Poverty often leads to desperation, which can increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. By improving material conditions—such as ensuring stable housing, affordable healthcare, efficient public transportation, and quality education—we can address the root causes of crime and create a more stable and law-abiding society. source
Take away the material need for war, and war ceases to become desirable.
Putin does not have poor material conditions. This is his fucking house:
And just wait until you see the Guest House that Xi Jinping stays at while visiting NK.
Oh, I get it, you’re thinking individually. I was thinking collectively. Maybe we should limit the ability for individuals to wage war.
Russia collectively is controlled by Putin individually. So we cannot morally condemn the defence of Ukraine without supporting War in general.
This Russia affinity of the left is so rediculous in 2024 and shows how lost these people really are. It shows they are at least off by 4 decades or so when this stance would have made the tiniest bit of sense.
They act as if they are idiologically aligned but Russia has turned into a worse than capitalism system. When? In the last 40 years!
I demand an immediate end to the war in Ukraine whereby Russia cedes even more land to Ukraine.
Russia was communist once and China pretends to still be that means I’m a bad leftist if I don’t send death threats to people who support Ukraine and Taiwan.
Actual thought process some people have listed above
The funny thing about that is that Russia was never communist. Though many don’t understand the difference between communism and Communism. The irony being that Communism was basically cosplay of communism. But never actually communism.
I mean, there was a pretty solid chance of actual communism before the Bolshevik coup. I think that if the Soviets overthrew the provisional government we’d have a fully socialist government, which could have eventually became communist.
It was still not communist, but lets remember that it could have been before the party communists made their state capitalist government in the name of communism
Adding to that, Russia was never communist or even socialist. Marx never intended ownership as a concept to be discarded, only that workers would always own what they needed to work.
I arrived at that conclusion by analyzing what ownership means. Ownership means that you either control something, or the person who controls it is accountable to you. In a state with an authoritarian dictator, such as Stalin, the dictator controls the means of production, if not directly, then through his subordinates, who are accountable to him. Therefore, in the soviet union, the workers didn’t control the means of production, Stalin did. Basically, the Soviet Union was the endstage of capitalism.
Yes, in a similar way, north Korea is closer to being a monarchie than anything else. Totalitarian monarchy.
Maybe “absolutist” would be a better term.
well yeah, because it was the soviet union that was communist.
The Soviet Union was a state. Therefore not stateless, therefore not communist. The Soviet Union had a separate political class. One that scapegoated, imprisoned, and even slaughtered any proletariat that dared criticize the vanguard party and it’s leaders. Therefore not classes, not communist.
The Soviet Union nominally implemented Communism. But communism and Communism aren’t the same thing. I could name my dog Communism. And my dog would be Communism. But not communism. The soviets cosplayed communism. But never were or will be communist.
Not all Authoritarians are Fascists.
That said, I would agree that whomever supports Putin, supports Fascism - there is nothing at all Leftwing in present day Russia, quite the contrary.
China is more complicated.
China is more complicated
That’s because they found a way to voor communist thought to the most capitalist industry in the world.
Well, they managed to pull about a billion people out of poverty over the last 4 decades or so, which means that mainly they were following leftwing ideals.
(I come from a country which had actual Fascism until the 70s and what the Fascists did was the exact opposite of that: the vast majority of people were dirt poor and kept dirt poor whilst a tiny elite tightly interwined with the Fascist Government gorged themselves on the wealth of the country).
However, it’s been some time since China did that lifting of the masses out of poverty, and they’ve been shifting to Capitalism whilst keeping the Authorianism from their implementation of leftwing policies (they called it Communism, but they never really reached such utopical state, so I’m wary of calling that Communism).
Are they even left of center nowadays? I don’t know enough in detail how modern China operates to pass judgement on that - outside of China we mostly hear of what’s done in domains that reflect the part of their ideology that falls on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis, not the stuff that falls on the Left-Right one.
I don’t think they’ve yet moved all the way to Fascism, though, even if they’ve kept the Authoritarianism going.
it’s been some time since China did that lifting of the masses out of poverty
China eliminated “absolute poverty” only as of 2020, I’m not sure if there’s any comprehensive report on how the most recent 5 year plan (2020-2025) has succeeded or failed in improving the conditions of China’s poor at large.
Well, they managed to pull about a billion people out of poverty over the last 4 decades or so, which means that mainly they were following leftwing ideals.
well i mean, in defense of this statement, mao was literally psychopathic. As far as i’ve read they basically dropped everything including food production to make a nuclear bomb. Coming from that to industrialization is only inevitably going to vastly increase your standard of living. We saw the same thing across the world, even in the soviet union.
also i definitely wouldn’t call china center of left, unless we’re specifically talking about economic policy, as china is extremely noteworthy for being pretty tyrannical in certain cases around certain things. the great firewall being a good example. Unless we’re going with the modern american conservative definition of left, in which case, yeah that would be left.
Re-read my comments on this thread.
You’re confusing the authoritarianism-libertarian axis with the left-right axis.
It’s perfectly possible to be authoritarian in genuine pursuit of the “the greatest good for the greatest number” principle (the basis of all left-wing ideals) if one believes that only tight and centralized control can achieve a maximal balance of the welfare of people and the number of people getting the best possible welfare, and that individual freedom is not important enough for people’s welfare compared to other things.
(Personally I don’t agree, but my point is that it’s not incompatible to have left-wing objectives and believe they’re better reached via authoritarian methods).
Totally agree on Mao’s character. IMHO what China achieved, it did in spite of Mao rather than due to him.
Further I would say that their long term strategy of becoming the workshop of the World seems to have worked as they’re well in their way to become the next imperial power. It seems a blindness-driven-by-ideology to dismiss their economic rise and its reasonably even distribution across society as merely “inevitable”, especially when there are countless examples that failed miserably to do so during that time, most notably next door India which did not manage anywhere near the same.
There are plenty of questions about the sustainability of their strategy as they become a medium wealth country, the Ecological consequences of it and of lots of the decisions they’ve made in the last decade or so, none of which deny the uniqueness - and hence merit, given that their only resource was people, not minerals and natural wealth like other countries many of which got nowhere near China in terms of speed of development - of what they did achieve so far.
If one takes off one’s ideological blinkers (and me not being American, I couldn’t care less if China replaces American or not as the top power since neither does anything in my interest or the interest of those I care about, so I have no knee-jerk “China Bad” reaction), China looks like a country which did a bunch of things well for a while but did others wrongly and had problem and isn’t performing as well anymore.
well obviously, authoritarianism is a method of governance, you can have that mixed with literally anything. I just don’t believe that china has generally social left leaning objectives, like i said, unless we’re talking like classical liberalism or something, they’re pretty socially conservative, and they’re not super economically left either.
They’re like a weird mix of ethno nationalist (china is not very diverse) and capitalist-authoritarian, combined with social conservatism.
I think if we’re talking about general social status, china is probably doing something productive, though it’s questionable how much longer that will run on for. But general social status is boring.
economically, china is experiencing quite a lot of pressure, as more authoritarian controlled economies tend to do. And this is historically aligned with how their society has gone throughout the years. Things get unstable, they vie for power as their influence starts to wane, and then it accelerates until social collapse and “rebirth” as is pretty typical for all human society, though most places don’t really have the history to show it, so it’s not unusual.
If they can make it out of this pressure, which is debatable, they’ll do well, currently they’re debt farming smaller countries in the hopes of gaining outside control of them through the debt. That could be a significant liability, they have quite a significant portion of debt wrapped up in simply building wealth, which is sketchy and can implode if not properly controlled, similar to the US, but perhaps without the sheer productive capability of the US.
if they can’t make it out, they die and implode a horrible death rising from the ashes sometime later. Probably through a few rough leaderships along the way.
A big problem with poverty status in china lowering is that wages are rising, so china has to ship to a higher quality production base, which they have the capacity for, but the economic incentive to produce in china compared to somewhere onshore, or near shore drops off a cliff at that point. Especially when you factor in stuff like shipping. Ethical product sourcing, and all kinds of other stuff that’s more socially acceptable now. People are generally willing to pay more for a more local service/good. Especially as economic status increases in the west as well. Though that might also be related to bad financials so.
Yeah the big question really is “were those gains sustainable?” which in turn links with “can they adapt to this new stage of their economic growth cycle?”.
I don’t think things are going anywhere as well now there as they did before (it’s even unclear of the country is growing at all for the many) hence why I kept making an exception for “the last decade” in the comments I’ve been writing here about China.
We can come up with a thousand reasons why they’ll have problems and a thousand ways in which they can succeed, but those “what ifs” are just a bit of informed fantasism so I’m refraining from such futurism as it’s a practice riddled with wishful thinking, selective picking of what suits one’s theories and building theories based on an information sparse basis that’s somewhat poluted (as in, there’s way more we don’t know than there is that we do know especially at a detail level, and especially here in the West what we do know tends to be mostly the things that certain political forces believe will make us think bad of China).
It’s hard enough to try and form a fair and honest opinion of present day China and doing futurism based on this shitty informational basis would just be building castles in the air, which there is no point in doing.
So I’m just acknowledging their past success, with the caveat that it’s been a while since that achievement and it’s unclear of late if they’re even still going forward and if they’re even still in practice left-of-center in what they’re doing.
Fascism = far RIGHT ideology; communism = far LEFT ideology
I mean you can point out that you’re not a fan of Putin but if you’re for diplomatic solutions instead of total war you’re a fascist. No matter if you try to explain that you’re a pacifist and that war is not acceptable and arming for war just makes war that more likely. As soon as you mention NATO eastward expansion as a problematic policy you’re a tankie. Or if you mention that people saw this war coming before 2022 and it could have been stopped. Or if you point out that calling Russians “orks” is racist. Just massive downvotes and the zerg moves on.
There is zero difference between the MAGAts and the leftists in regards to how brainwashed they are. And no I’m not a centrist either.
The issue with bitching about “NATO expansionism” is that at the end of the day it’s still an alliance that countries ask to be members of due to concerns about being invaded or attacked.
and you forget the border requirements for being a NATO state. IIRC, you cant have any active border conflicts, so it should automatically prevent the whole “unwanted nato expansionism”
countries ask to be members of
Countries like Russia in the 90s, which was denied for some reason despite the fact that their president was literally installed by the CIA.
Countries like Russia in the 90s, which was denied for some reason
Denied because Russia didn’t want to go through the usual application process. But keep peddling bullshit - it’s the only thing fascists have, after all.
Diplomatic solutions to an invasion that violates treaties?
If there is one thing life as a geek in highschool taught me is that the ONLY effective way of stopping the violence when facing a bully is to hurt the bully back, even if you don’t hurt them as much as they do you.
The bully strategy is: violence, followed by concessions from the other side to stop the violence, followed by a period of non-violence, then one of threats of violence to get concessions, then violence again if there are no concessions or the bully finds them insuficient or simply wants more than they demande and then it all repeats.
This is exactly the pattern of behaviour from Russia towards Ukraine, clearly visible since their invasion of Crimea and subsequent events.
The strategy for dealing with non-bullies was the one tried after the Crimean invasion and the result was a typical bully pattern of behaviour from Russia in response, which is why any Thinking Pacifist has by now concluded that unfortunatelly a response of “concessions” to Russian agression will result in a temporary pause of Russian agression and even more Russian aggression at a later date, whilst a strategy of responding to Russian aggression with the most hurtfull possible response in all senses (including militarilly) to make it be a negative for Russia to act agressivelly will dissuade Russia from acting aggressivelly for a long, long time, possibly forever.
Unfortunately the most simplistic strategy of Pacifism, which is to find a way to balance the interests of both sides, doesn’t work with actors who purposefully and repeatadly use violence and the threat of violence to extract gains, because their “concerns” are not genuine fixed issues that need addressing, they’re goalposts which they move every time they’re addressed because they’re really a mechanism for extraction of gains from the other side.
they’re really a mechanism for extraction of gains from the other side
I have no problem applying that framework towards Russia. They did this for internal political and for geopolitical reasons. My problem is that people are no longer capable of applying that framework towards the US / Nato. That they too, only did this “hey join nato bro!” to get Russia into this trap and bleed them dry using Ukraine.
There is a sort of black and white / good vs evil thinking now that is uterly naive, dehumanizes the enemy and only allows people to see them as fully evil and absolutely untrustworthy and incapable of rational acts. While your own side is absolutely innocent and blameless.
The amount of double think going on is astonishing, it’s not just ahistoric it’s blatantly false seeing how the US is supplying the weapons for a genocide in Palestine right now. But people seem to be able to completely compartmentalize the role of the US in Palestine vs the role of the US in Ukraine.
And then everyone who doesn’t agree with the dogma and proscribed narrative is your enemy. And like you pointed out, there apparently is only one way to deal with an enemy: Violence.
Or if you point out that calling Russians “orks” is racist.
the Russians also called the Ukrainians nazis, so…
Well there isn’t a single image of the Ukranian Army from the last decade that doesn’t have a symbol from a nazi-collaborating org in it, so the shoe definitely fits.
this entire thread is fucking bait bro what the hell is going on with the internet lately.
China isn’t more complicated
Fascism used State Capitalism. Political parties are corporations anyway
If someone questions their religion (like that mma guy who fought the larpers) then they lose their social credit…which leads to loss of income and property
I do think china is a capitalist hell hole that doesn’t even have universal healthcare.
But social credit thing is not real afaik. I personally asked several chinese people and they all laugh at it.
They of course can and will prosecute “enemies of the state”. But social credit is not the way they tend to do it.
Meanwhile the US literally have credit score or something like that, don’t they?
Yea the social score thing seems like a misunderstanding of Chinese culture.
Chinese culture (and other Asian cultures) have a history of shunning people who have committed ‘shameful’ acts out of their communities.
The MMA guy that the previous comment was talking about was shunned out of living a normal life in China for exposing the phony Kung Fu masters in China.
The Chinese government has experimented with different kinds of social score systems, though most didn’t stick. They do have a credit/banking score system just like we have in the US, too. Still, I think most of this blacklisting just comes from their culture, and not from the Chinese government enforcing social scores.
do think china is a capitalist hell hole that doesn’t even have universal healthcare.
Nazi Germany had healthcare…as far as fascist states go it has to be up there
Wut?
Where are you getting your information from?because it’s all fake.
During the third Reich you needed to buy insurance or to pay a private doctor. Many industries had to provide health insurance to their workers like in the US, but many people were left uncovered and healthcare professionals did not work for the state, they were mostly self employed or employed by private hospitals.
There was not socialized healthcare like in most modern civilized countries.
Are you unaware of their medical experiments or are you just a holocaust denier?
they didnt say it was publicized or socialized. They just said it was healthcare.
Add Palestine in the US context to the list. Go into someone’s post history and without a fail there is the same shit of russia did nothing wrong, nort korea normal country.
It is just another genocide as a political fodder topic. Fucking disgusting.
ah yes, without fail
Part of that is because Palestine is Russia’s proxy ally so the content farms push pro-Palestine
Hey its you!
Russia is actually Palestine’s proxy. It was Hamas all along.
Like how the Russo-Ukrainian War is a proxy war between North and South Korea. We are all just puppets on the peninsula’s strings!
Is that Adrian Zenz?
These are easy with anyone who’s not a tankie. Ukraine is on the “western” side and not so weak. Uyghurs are Muslim (it’s a safe bet to support Muslims). There’s no challenge in picking the right side there.
How about Artsakh?
How about Assyrians and Yazidis?
Also do people even think about actions and not “filters” for their internet politics? As in - how many people arguing about this have written to their representatives, donated to victims, yadda-yadda?
Ah yes, teh comitteh for unamerican posters
Next stop, Taiwan into NATO and if there is any trouble who could have thunk it???
Can I ask you: what does the NA in NATO stand for?
Maybe “move Taiwan” was part of his plan?
I mean there’s plenty of space for it between Iceland and Ireland, and it would close the GIUK gap…
“Biden is currently dropping bombs and Trump isn’t, therefore anyone desiring a Kamala victory is a fascist” --Linkerbaan unironically
Lol ever since I left lemmy.ml my life here is so clown free it’s unbelievable.
These “omg I’m so leftist” morons have been saying that for months. Odd how they spend so much time in activities that make Trump more likely to win and ignore all logic relating to that fact.
If you try to make them understand this logic they’ll just call you a Zionist genocide lover, there’s no getting through to them.
Right. And it makes no sense given that Trump would probably be even worse, and anyone with a clue about American politics realizes that a 3rd party isn’t going to win. The “we have to send a message to the democrats” isn’t a realistic strategy either. What they were saying 6 months ago was “we need to oppose Biden now” (apparently by denigrating him at every opportunity) “but then we’ll support him in the general election”. Ah yes, of course, you’re spreading tons of negative messages about the guy you want to win. Surely they were being honest, right?
Were the Germans complicit in fascism after voting for Hitler and standing by as he invaded Poland and started WW2?
- There are two choices in the United States 2024 election. No third party stands a ghost of a chance of winning. No, not even if the 30,000 people you can reach on Lemmy all vote for Timothy Greenparty.
- A Trump victory in 2024 would not only be just as bad if not worse for the citizens of Gaza than Harris would, but also pose an existential threat to a large number of vulnerable Americans (trans people, immigrants, women seeking abortions).
- Given the margins of victory in 2016 and 2020, Kamala might not win if leftists don’t vote for her.
- Snoozing fascism for four years is better than inviting it through the door now, and buys us time to build our defenses for when it comes back.
I’d like to focus my counterargument. Which of these statements do you disagree with?
It was a simple question. Answer first please, then I’ll address a counter argument. Please don’t try to deflect.
Whatever. Fine. Sure. Why does it matter?
Both mainstream candidates have promised to continue funneling arms to Israel. If people who voted for Hitler were complicit in fascism, and that analogy extends to the current election (and I’m not at all convinced it does), then anyone who votes for either major political party is complicit in fascism. Do you believe this? If so, then just say you object to point 1 and let’s discuss third-party voting.
I do believe that voting for either party is complicit in the genocide, myself included. I can recognize this and still vote for Harris to prevent damage to marginalized communities. But I don’t denigrate those that choose to not vote or vote third party because of the genocide. I get it.
Link or it didn’t happen.
Sorry, I meant a link to where they said anything remotely like what you claimed they said.
It’s very funny how reliable it is that when people shit talk about other users without providing a link, they are lying literally 100% of the time.
As I said, a link to anything remotely like what you accused them of saying.
Their argument in that one was that holding democrats accountable is necessary to get them to change their positions, which will in turn help them win.
Try again. Or just admit you made it up whole cloth, as y’all do.
“Cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds” and “Liberals are perfectly happy voting for Democrats despite the genocide” doesn’t say “Harris voters are fascists” to you?
Yeah but they didn’t say exactly what you said they said so neener neener you’re a weener
They’re using the definition of “liberal” as neoliberal or classic liberal, as in basically, capitalists. It gets confusing since in the US the term means center-left people with a focus on improving lives for racial and gender minorities and women. But also these “omg I’m a communist bro so leftist” people like do the “both sides are the same” crap and claim that democrats and republicans are equivalent because they’re both “liberals”, as in capitalists, as if we’ll have a choice about that anytime soon in the us. Also they completely ignore that the democrats are more likely to enact socialist policies while republicans bitterly oppose them.
“Cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds” is a common expression. "Liberals are perfectly happy voting for Democrats despite the genocide” is just factually true. If that means the same thing as “Harris voters are fascists,” then, uh, if the shoe fits wear it I guess.
These guys care about Palestinians about as much of as anti-choicers care about unborn babies.
So the uncommitted delegates at the DNC don’t care about Palestinians?
My deal with China is this, The CCP is posing as a communist regime to gain more control over its citizens, it is not communism because there is no democracy.
They have elections in China, but yeah, as an outsider it is clear to see that the establishment significantly controls who is allowed to run. I just wish people realized that entrenched solid red and solid blue states in the US aren’t much better.
So it just feel hypocritical when we criticize China for having a shitty democracy and yet we tolerate our deeply undemocratic two party plutocracy. If we truly valued democracy then we would demand a modern proportional multiparty system like they have in Europe
How many parties are there in china?
Just looked at that wikipedia article. Those parties need the CCP’s permission to even exist. Sounds more like a democracy theater than actual democracy.
If the Republican party were dissolved and only the Democratic party remained, would that make the US more democratic or less democratic?
There are two things that need to happen for your hypothetical scenario:
- The republican party gets dissolved.
- Only the democrat party remains.
If “1.” happens, then another party will appear and they’d be back to having 2 parties. Because of the way the US electoral system works, there is an equilibrium at 2 parties, due to game theory. No more, no loss. Depending if the new party is more or less democratic, the US would be more or less democratic.
For “2.” to happen, there must be some change to the US electoral system, which would make it less democratic. It would probably be a move by the democrats to seize all the power to themselves and ensure they don’t have to share it with any other party. That would result in a less democratic US.
So the existence a major party that is constantly trying to subvert popular will through things like gerrymandering, voter suppression, regulatory capture, appointing corrupt judges, and making sure that the rich and powerful are able to do anything they want and are never held accountable is what separates the democracy of the US from those evil, authoritarian, one-party states, do I have that right?
How is having a party that tries to undermine democracy to that degree an indication of a healthy democracy?
Because the thing about democracies is that the people have the power. The people can vote and choose their leaders. Sometimes those leaders try to remove power from the people, and there is people dumb enough to still vote for them.
Those people, even if dumb, still are represented, and that’s what democracy is about. Because if you remove all the parties except one, that one party has no one to hold them accountable.
Even if you really like that one party, they have no reason to stay the same with the same ideals, eventually someone who want power above the will of the people will get a lot of power in that one-party system. And now you have an authoritarian state with no opposition.
There must always be opposition to make sure that the party in power has something to lose if they don’t work for their voters’ interest.
Sometimes those leaders try to remove power from the people, and there is people dumb enough to still vote for them.
How much of it is people being dumb vs corporations financing propaganda and misinformation to get people to vote against their interests? Without campaign finance regulation, the rich are always going to be strongly overrepresented politically, and once they’re in power, guess who gets to decide campaign finance laws?
So I guess just I don’t understand why you think letting these types run amok and decieve people and buy out elections as part of a fascist agenda is conductive to the expression of popular will in government, as opposed to just not letting that happen.
