@pizzaiolo@epicspongee I used to use Twitter all the time before it got to a point where I couldn’t stand it anymore, and I felt like a weight had been lifted off of me after I deleted the app.
People who have a large following and magic emojis next to their name will keep using it because it gives them their validation. Twitter celebs are really in a sad state of existence
or the genocide in Yemen, or his role as the deporter in chief, or that he engineered the largest transfer of wealth from the Black community to capital interests, or, or, or
Absolutely wild that things escalated from a “reset” of relations with russia to the maidan coup in like 4 years, I honestly wish I knew more of what was going on there.
During his presidency, Obama approved the use of 563 drone strikes that killed approximately 3,797 people. In fact, Obama authorized 54 drone strikes alone in Pakistan during his first year in office. One of the first CIA drone strikes under President Obama was at a funeral, murdering as many as 41 Pakistani civilians. The following year, Obama led 128 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan that killed at least 89 civilians.
It's pointing out hypocrisy. But people have forgotten that or are just ignorant? I can't see how you'd come to that conclusion unless you were very "both sides".
Are you just looking to dunk without actually absorbing what was actually said? If so, go back to reddit.
If you’ve actually misunderstood me, I never claimed Obama caused the recession. His policies after just massively looted the proletariat to benefit the bourgeoisie, and in particular looted black proletariat.
That’s not what she said lol. Sorry as a neurodivergent person I get that this tweet might be hard to read possibly, but she’s being sarcastic here. Maybe in poor taste, but it’s a joke. She’s well-aware of the shit Obama’s done and isn’t a fan of him.
She says that Obama was bad. Everyone understands she was being sarcastic. Since she was being sarcastic it means that she is trying to say that Obama wasn’t bad (because that’s how sarcasm works).
I see it as mocking conservative news networks that acted like it was a controversy. Which you absolutely can do and still believe Obama was a bad president or whatever.
This comment is a great example of the “insight” that you find on that instance. Random insults that don’t make much sense unless you uncritically agree with the most boot licking China / Russia defenders.
It’s not insulting, it’s just boring. It’s like bots repeating old Chapo comments from different articles, none of which make sense.
However, most sane people would agree that Obama was, as far as U.S. presidents go, very uncontroversial. Well spoken, very few scandals, centrist policies, didn’t make a fool of himself every time he met a head of state, etc.
So the conservatives latched onto the WEIRDEST shit. Made him up as a Kenyan citizen (???), actually made a big deal about his choices of condiments or suit colors, etc. These were all real things that made the mainstream news cycles, because Obama wasn’t livetweeting his every thought or being indicted every day, but US conservatives had to complain about something.
This is to be contrasted to the mainstream Republican figureheads, who are unbelievably crass&corrupt traitors yet receive nothing but praise from the same media/pundits that thrashed Obama for his choice of mustard.
Absurdist contrast like this is, indeed, comedic. I rest my case.
(Also Natalie has talked in-depth about how shitty this faux-leftist “the democrat candidate is actually center-right and imperfect, therefore I shall not vote for them even if it gives the win to the literal rapist who will absolutely jail me for my political beliefs, gender expression, or sexual orientation if given the chance” in her videos, most notably the 2020 campaign video, but of course none of that fits in 240 characters, also comedy doesn’t tend to work when overexplained, thank you for coming to my TED talk)
I mean… sure? But that comment written by that particular person I can not see how it can be interpreted as a criticism against Obama. Unless it’s a kind of 4chan humor, which is shameful to understand anyway.
This is absolutely just a regurgitation of people saying Obama’s biggest scandals was the pants he wore. The joke doesn’t have a punchline otherwise, barring missing context that you should have led with if there was a misunderstanding.
Isn’t the punch line holding that belief? As in she was being sarcastic in saying that the sauce was the worst thing he did. It is an absolutely absurd belief to hold and thus humorous
I have an issue when the same people who were cheering during the Bush years, gave grudging acceptance at drone strikes during Obama, and were silent during the Trump years, pipe up and say drone strikes are bad now.
Progressives have been saying this the whole time.
Also, a reminder that Obama tried to write regs limiting the use of drone strikes at the end of his presidency. Trump promptly threw them out on entering.
Drone strikes are the holy grail of the military-industrial complex. They are cheap to run meaning that the air force doesn’t have to give them a huge budget yet consume precision bombs and missiles at a steady rate meaning that the weapon industry get a secure revenue stream. And they can be scaled up almost infinitely since there is no bad news coverage of wounded veterans or crying widows on us television.
I mean. It definitely carries the implication that Obama has done very little wrong whether or not you intended it that way. Natalie’s inability to own up to mistakes is either a serious character flaw or she thinks that the murderous actions he took were justified.
Since she basically stopped making content, I’m a little surprised she still has an audience. Like so many otherwise curiously influential and interesting people, she’s doomed herself to drowning in the social media space when everyone would be better off (her most of all) if she just logged the fuck off.
It’s not really hard is it? “Yeah people are right about this.” and then growing from it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that from her, not a single time. Everyone is always wrong except her, it is always the internet’s fault, and she is perfect and right about everything.
I have much more respect for people like Noah Samsen who has made mistakes with epic debatebros and just owned up to it like “Yep engaging with them was a mistake I shouldn’t have done it and won’t be in future”. Just fucking learn from things ffs. Grow.
I think, still, it’s a reflection of what the conservative media at the time was making a big deal about. It wasn’t the drone strikes or war crimes, it was the tan suit that was run on Fox for several weeks.
It’s like they never gave a shit about civilian deaths. Ever.
Such an annoying reckless behavior to publicly Call Out a community you’re supposedly part of like this. Every time someone does this, I get a clear mental image of a dog licking its own ass. Just shut up, having random slapfights and compulsive arguing are childish zoomer traits
I used to think it was funny just because it WAS absurd that Hannity (it was Hannity right?) made a big deal out of Obama ordering “fancy mustard” and therefor being unAmerican. I thought it was a good commentary on conservative media’s weird tics. But once I noticed that libs were using it (and tan suit jokes) just as much to absolve Obama of having “real controversies” and not just making fun of Fox News, it lost its edge for me.
ETA: Also its really corny of Contra to engage in such an overused joke, beyond how lib she’s being its also just really gauche.
Tan suit Dijon mustard obama-drone was amusing until I realized how much of politics is theater. It was just too blatant this time, but so much of American news is only slightly more serious than Dijon mustard.
Going? I think the least lib she ever got was making two videos about capitalism being bad and then concluding it with this statement:
You know maybe we should do something in the meantime. Uhh so I dunno, I guess vote Labour, tweet radically, try to eat more vegetables, uhh… Try not to be manipulated into waging war against other downtrodden people, and can we please not hand more power to the absolute worst dingbats our society has on offer.
In the US, we use liberal to describe a person who is left of center on the political spectrum, who is not a socialist. And we use conservative or neo-liberal to describe someone right of center.
Is the goal to make fun of people left of center or to make fun of people right of center? I honestly cannot tell from the above conversation. This may simply be regional based confusion on my part.
I would use neo-liberal to describe many American politicians, including a majority of Democrats, as they tend to have views right of center. But I would use liberal to describe many of the people voting Democrat as their views reflect positions that are at least center left.
I can’t claim to be an expert, and this is strictly in a USA context, but I’d explain it this way: “Liberal” is used to insult someone for having and promoting bad, insufficiently leftward political principles, instead of good ones. The good ones depend on what principles the person doing the insulting holds. The right side of the political spectrum also uses Liberal as an insult, so it can be confusing.
Elements of the far left consider Liberals hardly better than (and in practice indistinguishable from) political centrists, conservatives, or fascists, due to the perception that Liberals support policies that won’t disrupt systems that perpetuate injustice, and will carry water for other liberals even when they commit acts they would denounce their political opponents for doing.
The right uses Liberal as a catch-all term for leftists generally (whom they despise), but it has diminished a bit, being supplanted by “woke” “groomers” “antifa” and “BLM.”
Yeah, I’ve started seeing the far left use liberal to describe anyone to the right of them. And weirdly, people on the far left decry wokeness the same way a conservative would. It has been weird. =/
so, liberalism is decidedly right of centre. it requires buying into capitalism, but it’s not as far gone as the GOP. The US dems are left of the GOP, but right on a more absolute political meter.
Bernie is leftist, but Biden & co are properly right of centre. Your Overton window has shifted so far to the right that a leftist politician will have a harder path than a snowball in hell.
I say this as someone that has a neolib prime minister (Trudeau).
Suffice to say, liberals and conservatives have the same goals, liberals just prefer a sustainable labour class.
I would say Bernie is democratic socialist. I would call myself a social democrat, so slightly to the right of Bernie, but slightly to the left of a liberal. I would also say liberals are to the left of moderates who are to the left of conservatives/neo-liberals who are to the left of fascists.
The US Overton window is way to far to the right though.
That’s fine, just understand that you’re using a US-centric framework that differs from what socialists mean when they say “libs”. From our perspective, if you’re pro-western-capitalism (and thus pro-neoliberalism) you’re a lib. Democrats, Republicans, doesn’t matter.
I am a social democrat which is a part of the socialist family as far as I’m concerned. As far as I’m aware, the US-centric framework is what everyone, including socialists, use in the US. Just as socialists else where, such as the UK or EU, use their own meaning for the word liberal.
Based on what you are saying, this particular instance of disagreement does not seem to be a regional one. As regional differences on definitions should translate and be something we both navigate around. What you are describing seems to a disagreement based on definition.
Conflating supporting some form of capitalism, in my case regulated capitalism, ie mixed economy, with neo-liberalism is intellectual dishonesty. You calling me a lib for supporting some form of capitalism is no different than me calling you a tanky for simply being anti-capitalist. Just because you seem to be against capitalism does not make you an authoritarian communist.
Democrats are not currently fascists, so that does matter. I’m registered independent though, so I’m not particularly interested in defending Democrats. If Democrats don’t become more progressive, as they are predominately neo-liberals right now, they could easily go the way of the Republican party and become fascist.
Look, I won’t argue with you on semantics. You’re free to disagree with the common definition of liberalism that socialists use. It’s really just a convenient term for people that are pro-capitalist. It’s not intended to be a nuanced term, and I doubt most reasonable socialists would directly equate Republican fascists with Democratic progressives, even if they see both as problematic.
Liberals can claim the word means whatever they want it to to make themselves feel better, but as long as they are pro-capitalism, liberals today are not on the left, since leftism is anti-capitalist by definition.
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
I would call the liberals you are referring to neo-liberals or conservatives. The few liberals I met in real life and the many liberals I’ve met online are fiercely anti-fascist.
I think this Vox article gives a more historically accurate take on how defeating the Nazis was a team effort by the Allies. Capitalism was essential to defeat the Axis powers. By the logic in the first article, capitalism is therefore anti-fascist.
Liberals call themselves a variety of things, ranging from “democratic socialists” to “social democrats” to even “socialists”
I had the pleasure to chat with a socialist online briefly. They wanted to tear down US democracy with a socialist revolution. I am certain that socialist was not actually a liberal in disguise. Or a secret fascist for that matter.
I definitely see how liberal is used as a way to describe how everyone who is not a communist is actually a secret fascist.
The third article actually admits the group it’s really talking about is neo-liberals, ie conservatives. The article claims capitalism and free market economies have to go, but doesn’t explain what will replace them. The author claims he wants a true democracy, which we have in the US by the way, so some it sounds like he wants some form of social democracy. I also want social democracy in the US. Communist countries have demonstrated that their economies are too brittle to survive long term. Even China allows a certain amount of free market. Quite a lot according to this guy.
The fourth article really seems to be highlighting the semantic difference in the use of the word liberal vs neo-liberal. As a related example, I really doubt the millions of people who voted against Trump, many of whom I’m sure self identify as liberal, are secretly fascists.
The issues in the US are a difference of progressives ideas versus conservative ideas. The conservative movement in the US is what is being co-opted by fascists. For example the Republican party is now controlled by fascists.
On a related note, the Mises Caucus has already orchestrated a fascist take over of the libertarian party in the US. These libertarians in the US were always conservative libertarians. They already believed might makes right and that their freedoms should supersede other peoples’ freedoms. So it doesn’t really surprise me that this happened to them.
Center to center right. Liberals tend to see themselves as left of center though and the word has very little meaning overall. I was mostly just making a joke though.
Yeah, basically she has in the past talked about how she admires leftists and I don’t think she isn’t one, but that she thinks leftist ideas come from envy of people who are more fortunate, and that leftist ideas are bad cuz they’re ant-consumer. Admittedly tho its been a long time since I remember her talking about politics and my memory isnt the best but those are things I think I remember… Try the ‘envy’ video
Yeah, I like have a soft spot for her because she helped show me that there was actually a left beyond voting for labour every now and again, and like she was the only trans rep young me really had, but like her politics are cringe af - abby-exasperation is way cooler imo
contra’s godawful takes on NB people / gender in general + her tendency to triple down when criticized really soured me on her content. it took all the fun out of the theater for me.
Nothing to my knowledge, she has a few videos defending nonbinary identities and rejecting people insisting it’s one or the other. I have no idea where the takes in this comment section are even coming from
PT makes good videos, but she is closer to contra than can be coincidental. I mean, what are the odds of two trans women making leftist (at least at one point) political video essays in an overly theatrical style with old english letters as pen names.
Yeah they’re friends and they used to help each other with the video production, I’m just saying that Abbie has wayyyy better politics than contra does (and her videos are better to - also she’s a fellow trans person enduring the hellscape that is TERF island with me so that endears me to her)
This is just pitting trans people against each other for no reason. PT were less theatrical before they came out, but acting like a theater kid in your video editing choices isn’t exclusive to any one YouTuber.
I was just comparing them since they’re decently close friends, they’re in the same niche and go for basically the same audience, and do things in the same style, it seemed like a pretty natural comparison to me
I understand, your comparison was fine. The person responding to you makes it sound like PT is ripping off Contrapoints though. Comparing their ideas, their production value and choices is fine, they do exist in a similar space, but there’s nothing wrong with PT existing in a similar space. Straight white men are allowed to coexist with identical videos on YouTube. But someone in a marginalized group? Their channels are constantly pitted against each other.
Vaush/Xanderhal, Asmongold/Penguinz0 are all allowed to be successful even though they pretty much make the same videos and stream clips on the same topics. But for some reason creators from marginalized groups can’t have similar tastes and ideas.
Ok, so it looks like stormfront is a website that promotes white pride. It sounds like there might have been a subreddit at some point based on that stormfront image.
I’m using non-reddit links because I don’t want to direct traffic to reddit.
Can you help me find a source that shows, stormfront, a white pride website, influenced the 196 rule please? This seems like an important point to learn more about. I’ve been googling, but I haven’t found any connection yet.
It’s a joke to dunk on Reddit, it’s become part of our parlance so we tend to drop it pretty casually. I can see how it comes across as accusatory here, but I think the user probably didn’t mean anything by it.
Back when i still visited reddit, i got bullied pretty hard by them for pointing out that it’s latently transphobic, assimilationist and toxic to shit on the way r/traaaaaaaa was inclusive of trans catgirl culture. They had an entire thread on how the memes on r/traaaaaaa were cringe and unfunny and it was full of latent bigottry like that. Made them sound like a bunch of chuds and truscums. r/196 also has a not insubstantial amount of chasers. Fetishizing us and talking about your favorite trans porn while dismissing the opinions of trans women as cringe isn’t trans friendly, it is objectifying and shitty and r/196 can go fuck itself.
heavy-handed moderation to keep it that way is a good idea. if someone engages in soft transphobia/chaser shit, warn and ban – don’t leave room for debates about how much trans positivity is too much.
I hope i can take your word for that, it’s generally what i’d expect of a place called blahaj zone, too. I’m just voicing my own experiences with the reddit sub.
196 had extreme crossover with the vaush sub, I think mods too? Either way I got banned for shittalking NATO there over 3 years ago and haven’t bothered to check in since.
I didn’t participate in 196 when I was on Reddit. And I’ve just now learned about Vaush. For what it’s worth, I haven’t seen him mentioned on this 196.
Although I’m pro-NATO. I’ve no way to know how representative that stance is of the general user base of this instance. But I’m of the opinion that it’s a common position.
The observed baseline for libs on reddit is defending obama-drone as if it’s a left wing position because the republicans are ‘worse’, with lots of unexamined western chauvinism piled on top, and hostile debate-me-debate-me misogyny if you push back on it.
Obama was president when NATO returned the slave trade to Libya- to quote his secretary of state Hillary Clinton: “we came, we saw, he died”. I’m sure you have all sorts of state-approved positions on Americas state enemies, but that’s the historical reality you’re whitewashing.
I’ll admit my knowledge on US involvement in Libya is lacking. I was a junior in high school at the time and I don’t remember hearing much about it. I’ll have to read up on it if I’m going to debate it with you. At a glance, it looks Obama would agree with you. Reestablishing the slave trade in Libya doesn’t seem to be the outcome he was hoping for. edit: typo
I really don’t understand how someone can come the conclusion that NATO is a good thing? :/ They’ve carried out some absolutely awful military operations that have taken many lives. They are not, in any way, a “defensive alliance” and have never acted like one. Like, the bare minimum that I ask is “Russia and NATO are both bad” (and thats not even wrong, its just said in bad faith sometimes). But outright saying NATO is good? :/
lmao this is almost cute. I do not have to “mark you for being swarmed”, you’re getting swarmed because a good deal of our terminally online userbase sees your shitty, nationalist, chauvinist take defending a genocidal war machinery and voice their heartfelt, justified disagreement with your imperialist bloodlust. PPB is a way to do that without having to engage in tedious, draining, pointless debate. It’s just our shorthand for “fuck off with your bs”. None of this is coordinated or centrally planned in any way, and it’s honestly hillarious that you think we’re this menacing, disciplined troll army when we’re just a bunch of shitposting trans girls, some working class dudes who are still rightfully pissed at the propertied class instead of venting their frustration and alienation on the marginalized, and a few people RPing as a flock of constantly pooping birds.
The sarcasm has not been missed. Yugoslavia was where the Bosnian genocide took place, NATO intervened. Afghanistan harbored al-Qaeda. Honestly Iraq seems like it was a personal vendetta for Bush backed up by his think tank that thought they could impose democracy.
“The west” as a whole does not have a right to defend itself. “The west” is not a nation. Considering it one has white supremacist vibes, I’m sure from your other posts that you don’t intend them, but the implications are there.
You have been lied to about Yugoslavia. In fact, the bombing of Yugoslavia would have been one of the atrocities I brought up, considering the 500 civilian deaths and 6000 civilian wounded that resulted from it. At the very least, while there may have been a genocide going on there, NATO’s goals were not to stop it. It was an excuse to enforce further western hegemony over the region. I Unfortunately I am not prepared with sources on that issue so I hope someone else in this thread will come through with some for you. I always forget to bookmark sources even though I know I’ll need them later. You’ll just hopefully trust me that I have read stuff about this before. I just forgot to save it.
Lastly, its stated goals mean nothing to me when they supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as just one example). Was that a defensive war?
“The west” as a whole does not have a right to defend itself. “The west” is not a nation. Considering it one has white supremacist vibes, I’m sure from your other posts that you don’t intend them, but the implications are there.
We have the collective right to defend ourselves. Individually any one European nation would be hard pressed to defend against Russia on its own. I don’t see how self defense gives off white supremacy vibes. NATO existing as a defensive alliance doesn’t prevent anyone else from doing the same thing.
Bookmarking stuff can get quickly out of hand. If you find it later post it here I guess. I think we are going to have agree to disagree. There was genocide happening in Yugoslavia. NATO intervened to stop it. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Lastly, its stated goals mean nothing to me when they supported the invasion of Afghanistan (as just one example). Was that a defensive war?
The Taliban harbored al-Qaeda which used Afghanistan as its base of operations when it coordinate the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks. So yes.
The Taliban harbored al-Qaeda which used Afghanistan as its base of operations when it coordinate the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks. So yes.
9/11 was funded and perpetrated by Saudi Arabia, a US ally that has bragged about the fact on twitter. we didn’t go after them, in fact we’ve continued to supply them with money and arms, especially as they conduct a genocide against Yemen.
Yeah, we should stop buddying with a monarchy for their oil. We need to invest in renewables, modern nuclear fission plants, and nuclear fusion as quickly as possible.
The NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was hardly to prevent a genocide unless you believe the US suddenly started caring about Muslim life - and then went on to maraud across the middle east leaving a trail of bodies in its wake.
There’s documented accounts of displaced Romani having to pretend to be Kosavar Albanians because there was zero humanitarian aid available for people not of the chosen ethnic group of the day.
One of the most interesting facets of the NATO air campaign is how they managed to demolish all the state owned factories and infrastructure, but leave the ones owned by westerners.
There’s also another issue with what NATO did to Serbia - Kosovo voted to unilaterally secede. I can think of at least one other prominent example where another territory did just that and it is seen as totally illegitimate by basically everyone in the west. Which is it?
The Taliban harbored al-Qaeda which used Afghanistan as its base of operations when it coordinate the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks. So yes.
The US was their first backers, getting 9/11’d was just blowback for shitty decisions made decades ago, and murdering a bunch of Afghanis and Iraqis was hardly defensive. We totally had troops guarding poppy fields and oil derricks for like 2 decades after as a part of that “defensive” operation.
I can think of at least one other prominent example where another territory did just that and it is seen as totally illegitimate by basically everyone in the west. Which is it?
separatist regions of Ukraine? Haiti? Northern Ireland? there’s so many good options to choose from
The NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was hardly to prevent a genocide NATO values human life, including muslim people. I won’t deny conservatives in western countries tend to be anti-muslim. I’m going to evaluate Yugoslavia on it’s own context and not based on wars in the Middle East.
One of the most interesting facets of the NATO air campaign is how they managed to demolish all the state owned factories and infrastructure, but leave the ones owned by westerners.
This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
There’s also another issue with what NATO did to Serbia - Kosovo voted to unilaterally secede. I can think of at least one other prominent example where another territory did just that and it is seen as totally illegitimate by basically everyone in the west. Which is it?
Oh, if you mean the Donbas region, those elections were a sham. It’s best not to believe Russian propaganda.
The US was their first backers, getting 9/11’d was just blowback for shitty decisions made decades ago, and murdering a bunch of Afghanis and Iraqis was hardly defensive. We totally had troops guarding poppy fields and oil derricks for like 2 decades after as a part of that “defensive” operation.
We were attacked by state sponsored terror. The war in Afghanistan was defensive. Iraq not so much, like there were never weapons of mass destruction.
The confederation of Trade Unions of Serbia produced a list of 164 factories destroyed by the bombings, all of them were state owned. Not a single foreign-owned firm was targeted.
What’s really wild is how the geniuses at NATO managed to drop 5 JDAMs on the chinese embassy in belgrade,“why does nobody like us” shocked-pikachu
our glorious free democratic elections
their sham elections
You’re a fucking parody lmao
We were attacked by state sponsored terror.
Literally all of Americas victims can say the exact same thing
I honestly know very little about Stormfront, beyond what I’ve googled. I don’t support white pride groups. I have seen people referencing it on Lemmy though.
I won’t contest that racism and bigotry existed on reddit. It definitely did. I also experienced and saw kindness and acceptance. Saying Reddit in its entirety is racist is really no different that saying everyone is racist. And not everyone and not everyone on reddit is racist.
I won’t contest that racism and bigotry existed on reddit. It definitely did. I also experienced and saw kindness and acceptance. Saying Reddit in its entirety is racist is really no different that saying everyone is racist. And not everyone and not everyone on reddit is racist.
reddit is full to the brim liberals and liberals are at best fascist enablers, at worst - especially when foreign politics are involved - they are fash-lite, consciously or otherwise
It goes without saying all lives matter. It needs to be said that Black Lives Matter. I am aware racism exists on reddit. I’d love to see a survey or study that indicates a majority of people are racist on reddit.
I’m not convinced that calling reddit predominantly racist is based on actual sympathy for people of color. There is a competing reason I can think of why someone would want to discredit reddit however. They tended to moderate against authoritarian communists, people who are notorious for their support of governments that committed genocides against minorities.
It is true that there are plenty of people who use reddit that are not racist (setting aside the idea that everyone who lives in a racist society, which we in the west do, has at least some internalized racism). Some people on reddit even actively fight against it, to their credit. That said, as a platform, both in terms of the people who run and administrate it, as well as the larger majority mass of users, definitely tends towards racism. This can be seen in all kinds of ways, from admins always siding with freeze-peach of racists over bipoc to the frothing-at-the-mouth hatred of the “orcish hordes” that dominates in every popular subreddit (and the silencing of those who offer even the mildest criticism of it), to the understandable yet very telling rabid defense of the privilege so many of them insist they earned when it is nothing more than old fashioned white privilege. You seem to agree that reddit is bad for its corporatist bullshit and its laser focus on profit at the expense of people. We agree. But that alone is inherently systemically racist for sociological reasons that I’m assuming you’re aware of, given some of your other comments. For all these reasons, it is hardly an overreaction or unfair to refer to reddit as “a racist website.”
As for “authoritarian” communists, all I’ll say here is that I hope you can learn to seriously, genuinely question a lot of what you have learned from what amounts to an ocean of propaganda deliberately spread for decades (even over a century) to demonize any successful socialist revolution. I’d encourage you to ask some of us “tankies” in good faith about some of that propaganda in other appropriate threads.
I definitely did see popular subreddits that would display racial biases to black people. They would bad mouth a black person doing something in a clip and then the next day defend a white person doing similar things. It didn’t happen that way every time, but it did seem like it happened that way more often than not. Also, there does seem to be a valid argument in that systemic racism asserts itself in instances of corporate greed like we’ve seen from reddit. In the sense it’s probably white people who are going to benefit from the enshitification.
At the very least I’m hoping we can have good faith discussions about progressive topics. IRL I typically talk to people more conservative me, so it is interesting to talk to someone coming from a different end of the political spectrum.
I wonder why a website that has been taken over by corporations (it was pretty much always corporate, but I agree its gotten worse) would aggressively silence communists, I also wonder if they would perhaps promote certain narratives about the enemies of the west. I also wonder why someone who is anti-corporate would support that.
Believe it or not, I really want our communities to get along because Hexbear is aggressively pro-trans.
They said elsewhere that they’re autistic. The need to be exact and truthful when people generalize something like a community is something i identify with. Its why I dont really love the stormfront joke myself, just go along with it for community peace. This person to me is clearly well intentioned and is an example of the dunk impulse going too far because I think they’re trying to do right.
ETA: Actually I got them mixed up with another user they never said they were autistic. But I still think they are well intentioned.
We aren’t going to tolerate intolerance in this instance. I personally don’t have a problem with communists. But I do have a problem with authoritarian communists. If you think me making this distinction is acting in bad faith, then you might run into more issues than just me here.
The cotton workers and the train workers should seize the means of production via their democracy. If they don’t have a democracy, they should perform a revolution to establish one.
Referring to a revolution by the people as authoritarian is like saying the oppression of a king is freedom. It doesn’t make sense under closer observation. Using force to achieve freedom does not invalidate that freedom. Once the revolution has been won, the people rule themselves. Any authority over them is a temporary construct of their own making that can be removed and replaced.
I think hate speech, threatening violence against another person based on inherent characteristics or for any reason really, should not be allowed. Nor should people be allowed to storm the capital to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Other than that though I think people deserve free speech and freedom of assembly even if I disagree with the speech or reason for assembly. Nazis tend to say a lot of hate speech and storm the capital so it isn’t really necessary or good to make an exception for them specifically.
I’m not interested in proactively suppressing Nazis, as that would make us no different than them. To put it another way, I’m not interested in rounding people up solely based on their political views. I am for punishing Nazi’s for their hate speech and insurrection. I think there should be consequences for actions and hate speech. I am also for educating people and getting Fox News off the air.
The authority vested in democratic leaders is ephemeral enough that it is the only desirable form of authority. At the end of the day, it’s the people who rule, not their leaders. By comparison the authority that dictators wield is very enduring and hard to get rid of. They make every decision and the dictators’ egos are what everyone around them has to be loyal to.
I’m not interested in proactively suppressing Nazis, as that would make us no different than them.
No, the people who suppressed nazi sympathizers during ww2 are not the same as people committing the holocaust. Nazis weren’t bad just because they targeted their political enemies. I would recommend reading blackshirts and reds and then the economics and class structure of german fascism.
The authority vested in democratic leaders is ephemeral enough that it is the only desirable form of authority. At the end of the day, it’s the people who rule, not their leaders.
All these “authoritarian” socialist societies had democracies. They are more democratic than any western democracy. Look at how Cuba’s family code was drafted before it passed by referendum.
No, the people who suppressed nazi sympathizers during ww2 are not the same as people committing the holocaust.
The Allies were fighting a war against the Axis powers. While the Nazis rounded up civilians for all kind of reasons, including political views.
We aren’t in a civil war in America right now. There is no basis to take action against modern fascists outside of the numerous acts of domestic terrorism they commit. Rounding up fascists solely based on their political views make us like the Nazis and is unbecoming of any free society.
All these “authoritarian” socialist societies had democracies.
Not the USSR, China, or North Korea which is what I was referring to by authoritarian communists.
We aren’t in a civil war in America right now. There is no basis to take action against modern fascists outside of the numerous acts of domestic terrorism they commit. Rounding up fascists solely based on their political views make us like the Nazis and is unbecoming of any free society.
People who are trying to start a pogrom on trans people, Jewish people, etc should be prosecuted actually, regardless of whether they’re actually successful. You can’t wait for the nazis to win before you crush them, by that point it will be too late.
Not the USSR, China, or North Korea which is what I was referring to by authoritarian communists.
What about these countries governments are different structurally from Cuba’s government?
People who are trying to start a pogrom on trans people, Jewish people, etc should be prosecuted actually, regardless of whether they’re actually successful. You can’t wait for the nazis to win before you crush them, by that point it will be too late.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If we go that route we are going to become the thing we are trying to prevent.
What about these countries governments are different structurally from Cuba’s government?
Rather than a difference in government structure, I would point to a difference in leadership. I personally believe Castro really did believe in socialism and had the best interests of the Cuban people at heart. As great as that is, a system of government that depends on the benevolence of its leaders is not one I want to live under.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If we go that route we are going to become the thing we are trying to prevent.
No, we will become people who suppress nazis, which is not the same as being a nazi. For an allegory, killing a serial killer in self defense (but before he actually kills you, gasp) does not make you a serial killer.
Rather than a difference in government structure, I would point to a difference in leadership. I personally believe Castro really did believe in socialism and had the best interests of the Cuban people at heart. As great as that is, a system of government that depends on the benevolence of its leaders is not one I want to live under.
So why don’t you believe any of the other leaders believed in socialism?
Also this is great man theory taken to an extreme.
Also I dont know how you can look at any of their government structures and claim that the people were reliant on the benevolence of the leadership.
For an allegory, killing a serial killer in self defense (but before he actually kills you, gasp) does not make you a serial killer.
While this is a true statement it does not follow that preventive actions against people who hold fascist views, but do not act on them, is anyway different what the Nazis did to people.
So why don’t you believe any of the other leaders believed in socialism?
The USSR Politburo only cared about itself. Same with the CCP and the Kim family. These are extractive institutions that are only self serving. They are not beholden to anyone so they have no incentive to care what the people want.
Also this is great man theory taken to an extreme.
He didn’t get the right to lead from inherently being a great man. He got it by leading his people in a revolution against a dictator. His policies benefited enough people so they continued support him. Castro actions were based on his personal moral compass. The fact Cuba didn’t become like North Korea is great. If Cubans aren’t giving meaningful mechanisms for dissent going forward, they will have little recourse to prevent their government from becoming like the Kim regime.
While this is a true statement it does not follow that preventive actions against people who hold fascist views, but do not act on them, is anyway different what the Nazis did to people.
You know the nazis just killed people on the scale of millions for being Jewish or gay or disabled right? It is not equivalent to suppress nazi rallies and arrest nazi leadership, because they can always stop being nazis, or learn to shut the fuck up about it.
The USSR Politburo only cared about itself. Same with the CCP and the Kim family. These are extractive institutions that are only self serving. They are not beholden to anyone so they have no incentive to care what the people want.
These are just claims. If the USSR politburo cared only for itself, why give regional and ethnic autonomy? Why increase standards of living and give women more rights?
If the CPC cared only about itself why didn’t it just do what the KMT was doing prior to their victory?
Kim was a revolutionary fighting the Japanese. He could have joined the nationalists where self enrichment was more likely if he won. Also, the DPRK implemented even more directly democratic programs than other socialist States. Unions and the state jointly oversaw all medium and large production lines, with supervision from the women’s league among others.
He didn’t get the right to lead from inherently being a great man.
Great man theory isn’t this. Great man theory is analyzing history from the top down, where the personalities of leadership is overly emphasized over structures of power.
The fact Cuba didn’t become like North Korea is great. If Cubans aren’t giving meaningful mechanisms for dissent going forward, they will have little recourse to prevent their government from becoming like the Kim regime.
Yes, I’m glad the US didn’t brutally occupy half of Cuba and then kill twenty percent of Cuba when the other half fought to liberate their country.
You know Cubans are free to criticize their government right? The current president literally walked the streets and talked to protestors recently. Could you imagine a US president going to Minneapolis and talking to BLM protestors in the street?
It seems like a lot of these arguments are mostly directed at straw men. I don’t claim to be taking the positions you seem to think I’m taking.
These are just claims. If the USSR politburo cared only for itself, why give regional and ethnic autonomy? Why increase standards of living and give women more rights?
Results may vary. Minority groups where the first to die in wars and in starvation.
Could you imagine a US president going to Minneapolis and talking to BLM protestors in the street?
I personally don’t have a problem with communists. But
Sounds like you have a problem with communists, or do you think that the country with the biggest army, police force, and imprisoned population (disproportionately of racial minorities) is somehow not authoritarian?
We have a federal presidential constitutional republic or FPCR in the US. It has three branches of government at the federal level that ideally work as checks and balances on each other. Then there are many subordinate state governments that act as a means of delegating responsibility for the federal government. Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population. We the people rule in America. The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.
We are circling the fascist drain. A fascist take over could happen in the 2024 election cycle next year. It’s not really surprising how low confidence is in our intuitions when Republicans are actively dismantling them for power.
The Democrats have been active participants in that though. They’ve been in power since 2020 and they fucked around making up excuses about imaginary roadblocks (like the parliamentarian) to doing shit people actually wanted. Their inaction and abject failure has hurt a lot of people who voted for Democrats in real ways and that’s why people are losing faith in governance, among many, many other things.
Democrats had a tight majority because of flaws in our democracy that allow Republicans to disproportionately represent themselves. Democrats had to negotiate around Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. It honestly impressive Democrats got anything done at all, but the legislation they did pass is not enough on its own. If we don’t fix the issues with our democracy soon we are going to lose it, because Republicans are going to keep exploiting everything they can until they get total power.
I legit don’t care if we lose it at this point because it seems like it’s been pretty worthless all along. At least as a democracy for anyone other than slave/property owners.
I really care. Without democracy, people like me and the people I care about are going to end up in death camps. American prisons are probably where it will happen. Once Republicans ram through the death penalty everywhere.
How exactly has the democracy prevented that? The American ‘democracy’ has overseen many genocides in its past, I don’t see this as a deviation from form. I’ve pretty sure I’d be on the chopping block too, but the key distinction is I’m not putting my faith in voting as a preventative measure for that
Non-violent means to prevent violence should be cherished. It’s true, the US committed genocide against Native Americans. That is obviously morally wrong. We haven’t been doing that in the 20th or 21st centuries though.
How exactly has the democracy prevented that? Elected politicians are beholden to the people, so they can’t go around killing all of their voters.
It’s true, the US committed genocide against Native Americans. That is obviously morally wrong. We haven’t been doing that in the 20th or 21st centuries though.
The US has committed genocidal war against Koreans and Vietnamese and Afghans and Iraqis among others in the 20th and 21st centuries.
As robot pointed out, the killing never stopped- the US killed approximately a third of the population of North Korea, dropping more bombs on that part of the peninsula than on all of Europe in WW2.
Elected politicians are beholden to the people, so they can’t go around killing all of their voters.
Conveniently, the millions of people killed and displaced by Americas warmongering don’t get a fucking vote lol.
I mean the killings stopped after the cease fire that ended the fighting in the Korean War if not the war itself. Yeah, it seems like America was over inclusive on what were military targets in the Korean War.
Conveniently, the millions of people killed and displaced by Americas warmongering don’t get a fucking vote lol.
Yes, if you’re not in a democracy you don’t get a vote. I don’t get the practicality of being completely anti-war. Wars are an inevitable part of human society. Atrocities committed in war don’t undermine the value of democracy. In fact, I would argue that democratic societies experience fewer atrocities because their governments are beholden to the people and do not have absolute power.
In fact, I would argue that democratic societies experience fewer atrocities because their governments are beholden to the people and do not have absolute power.
The reality is because you’re too busy inflicting them on everyone else, and to people it’s socially acceptable to hate within in your society (criminals, homeless people, ethnic minorities).
Wars are an inevitable part of human society.
muh human nature, pay no attention to the material conditions behind the curtain marx-goth
I don’t think it is social acceptable to hate people. But as far as I’m concerned what you’re saying is a non sequitur.
Lol, because the USSR and China never got involved in wars, okay. Communism doesn’t prevent wars and in fact the scarcity of resources communists societies generate would probably cause wars.
You seem to fall right in line when it comes to the russophobia, Communists saved the world from fascism and you guys can’t seem to forgive them for that.
And you already made it clear that your consideration for people ends at your national borders, that’s a pretty hateful mentality, especially when you’re using your “democratically controlled” military and economic influence to coerce weaker countries into shitty deals.
I don’t care what ethnicity you are, you’re repeating the same shit about how everyone saying anything other than CNN talking points is a russian or chinese bot, fuck off.
Communists and Capitalists saved the world together.
lmao okay yang gang
No, I care about what happens across national borders.
Yeah no shit, you pretty clearly want to make sure the resources keep coming from there, but for the brown people to stay where they are.
The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.
We literally had a bunch of unelected people in robes declare the president, just over 2 decades ago.
Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population.
ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don’t. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that’s often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.
Again, the unelected people in robes declared that money is speech, not only swaying elections but allowing influence to be bought directly. How is that a democracy?
You seem to be conflating the concept of ‘democracy’ with the freedom to spend money however it may hurt someone else structurally. That’s pretty authoritarian if you’re someone without money.
The Supreme Court has numerous issues. For starters, they aren’t elected so they aren’t beholden to the people. They have minimal ethics guidelines so they can accept bribes from billionaires. They don’t have term limits, so they are effectively 9 kings and queens. The electoral college allowing two presidents to win their first term without the popular vote and the Senate giving conservative states over representation has allowed conservatives to capture the court. edit: typo
These compounding issues are destroying our democracy. If we don’t fix these issues we will not have democracy. The Supreme Court is already stripping rights from people, it’s only a matter of time before Republicans win back the Congress and the Presidency. If the Republicans are still controlled by fascists then and we haven’t fixed these problems we are going to be trouble.
ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don’t. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that’s often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.
Yeah, rent is way too expensive. Another reason for socialism to the pile. edit: spacing
I would make the case that the supreme court has never been anything other than a reactionary institution, and it sounds like you agree.
I would go on to point out that the rights ‘won’ by the supreme court are ephemeral and can be snatched away at any moment-
Take some of the examples of ‘liberal’ rulings- Roe vs wade came about the whole question of abortion from a liberal angle of privacy. Rather than simply providing a universal standard of prenatal healthcare to people, they opted for this sideshow. It’s never been about life, maternal mortality is ridiculously high in the the US, it’s about maintaining the profitable status quo.
The gay marriage ruling is another example of how worthless rights won by supreme court are- and how we should expect them to be retracted at any moment.
Yeah, with the way the Supreme Court is now definitely. The concept of settled law was bullshit. It’s nine votes and whoever has the most wins. McConnell understood that better than most apparently. Hopefully we will be able to fix this in time to stop a fascist take over.
The PRC has the same three branches of government, including a President at the head of the executive branch, and a constitution that lays out their roles (more thoroughly than the US does the power of the judiciary), and it also holds direct elections for municipal offices. Neither country directly elects its President, as the PRC has elected officials vote and the US has the Electoral College say “just trust me bro” before giving the election to the other guy half the time (based on elections this century).
We can see how the electoral college votes, just as we can see that China’s elections are a sham. Loyalty to Xi is the only thing that matters in Chinese politics now.
We can see how the electoral college votes, hence why I wasn’t worried about asserting that it just hands the votes to the other guy half the time, because if you are going to have a popular vote anyway, there’s not much cause to just tip the scales in the direction of land owners unless you were against democracy.
Have you ever made the slightest effort to investigate China’s elections? Or do you just believe what the western press tells you about them? There’s that saying that there is no need to burn books if you can just persuade people not to read them and we have here a demonstration why.
The electoral college is one of the flaws I would like to see fixed. We should abolish the electoral college. It disproportionally benefits Republicans because they control more land, as you said. Representative democracy is supposed to represent the majority of people not a minority.
I read a variety of what the free press has to offer about China. Xi has clearly consolidated power around him. It’s not a secret.
Non-profit does not mean its not run by capitalist interest
While the Sandler Foundation provided ProPublica with significant financial support, it also has received funding from the Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Atlantic Philanthropies.
Can’t find anything about funding right now, and I’m tired. But I do know they routinely publish articles inconsistent with the values of their namesake.
But I need to go to bed. Ive been doing this all day.
I don’t see why you feel the need to be so picky. Any story can be cross referenced from multiple sources. Regardless, we can always argue later. Please get sleep. =)
You might run into more issues than just this thread by casually tossing out the “authoritarian” label like you did on Reddit where the groups in question couldn’t defend themselves
Defend what? I don’t think the parallel you want to draw works quite as well as you think. My point is that Redditors can cast stones in their ignorance at people who they would struggle to string a whole sentence together to describe without buzzwords because they know jack shit about what those people actually think. Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
Not everyone to the right is a liberal, people like theocrats exist, but the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal (with influence from those evangelical theocrats), which is a subset of the larger political-philosophical category of liberalism. We can point to some differences between Republican and Democrat, but they are overwhelmingly of style and PR, not the substance. There are very specific issues, like abortion, where you can pretty reliably see differences, but even here the difference is overstated and this is evidenced by the fact Obama didn’t even try to codify Roe when he got elected and had Dems controlling congress.
Why is this? Well, I think you can avoid needing to offer people a carrot if you can just offer them not getting the stick, but if you make them secure then they’ll start asking for carrots. But that’s personal speculation.
More important is the overwhelming consensus seen on a variety of issues when you look at their actions. Biden has over and over had the chance to let Trump-Era executive orders simply die, but he has repeatedly signed on to their continuation or even expansion. All the power that Trump unfortunately wielded in office to push EOs and theoretically to veto seems to have evaporated when they touched old Joe’s hands. Why is that? It can’t be ignorance.
I knew people who thought Joe would be less hawkish on China, since that is traditionally the role of Republicans, but he in fact has been more hawkish! He has done a better job of stabilizing relationships with America’s North Atlanticist allies, but the imperial policies under Trump and Obama have continued aside from pulling out of Afghanistan (which Trump began working on but was too much of a coward to follow through on, we need only see the media backlash to Biden doing so to understand why).
I’m interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
In order: learn how federation works, oh no you poor thing, and Ben Shapiro wants his shtick back.
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
You don’t need to tell a communist that the people are to the left of the politicians, but apparently a communist needs to tell you that as far as engaging with individuals go, that means shit if they are too occupied with the same “gommunism no food” talking points the politicians to their right fed them.
As an aside, Denmark is still liberal, capital is the dominant power there as much as in the US.
I’ll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
I said “consider,” you have the right to be willfully ignorant and undercut your professed interests, those freedoms are some of the few that really are protected in the US. Regarding speech, it is only free if it doesn’t matter and otherwise you’re in jail or shot, and you need only look at Assange for evidence of that.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world, overthrowing whatever country it deems too much of a problem unless that country hardens itself remarkably against external threats. Huh, I wonder if there’s some throughline here?
Your argument is getting throughly scattered and devoid of meaning. You might as well say, “I’m trolling you.”, and save yourself the effort.
I said “consider,”
I did.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world
I don’t agree with the US cold war policy of toppling socialist countries and instating capitalist dictatorships. Thankfully modern US foreign policy is about supporting democracies. edit: spacing
Do you, like, investigate any of this? Are you not familiar with the attempts to topple Venezuela, the brief coup government in Bolivia that massacred protestors, or anything that isn’t a White House Press Release? Do you think the bombs dropped on Yemen were for democracy? Do you think the continued colonizing of Palestine is for that purpose?
Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you’re referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we’ve learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It’s in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.
The coup in Bolivia and the more recent attempts on Venezuela were just a few years ago.
I assume with Libya and Syria you’d just accept the flimsy pretext the US offered like with Yemen despite the barbarous butchering of civilians in all cases. Do you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were also for democracy? Are you that far gone?
From what I’ve read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator. I haven’t heard of any coup attempt by the CIA in Venezuela recently. At a glance there seems to be Silver Corp that did Operation Gideon. It’s not a state sponsored group. I don’t support the concept of just toppling one dictator in exchange for a US friendly dictator. The incentives a dictator has will inevitably lead them to side with other dictatorships over democracies regardless of who put them in power.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians. However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
I’m honestly not super familiar NATO’s intervention of Libya. I’ve read a bit. Sounds like it was bungled quite badly.
I mean Bush wanted to kill Saddam, because of the assassination attempt on his dad, Bush senior, by Saddam. The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries. I think what we’ve learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
Quickly skimming and finding that the US is faultless is the definition of being a mark.
Regarding VZ, I didn’t mean the 2020 attempt with a few guerillas, I meant mainly the ~2019 attempt that actually caused a national crisis, the one connected to Guaido guaido that was based on lies from the NED and friends.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians.
Most of them do when you don’t consider every boy over 14 a potential terrorist. Anyway:
However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
Syria was opposing terrorists. This shit only makes sense if you think every Muslim with a gun (or within a block of a Muslim with a gun) is a terrorist.
Apologetics for OIF are just disgusting.
What is the possible standard for saying that the US is making excuses rather than believing whatever flimsy pretext they throw out? Because if you support OIF, it seems like you’ll believe anything they say.
The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries
You are smoking crack. Libya lies in ruins with open-air slave markets and Syria remains somewhat together despite US attacks on Assad.
I think what we’ve learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
What is this shit? What possible basis do you have for claiming the US has any interest in democracy when you understand that “democratic” interventions to “liberate” countries in the 20th century were imperialist warmongering? Sometimes it’s even the same country being invaded or otherwise sabotaged both then and now!
It’s pure fucking doublethink. It’s not like the US has come out and said “hey, toppling Allende was bad, we’re prosecuting the people responsible”.
The actual coup sounds like it was a conspiracy theory? Or US involvement?
I really have no idea what you’re talking about. That was the most relevant thing I could find at a glance and I can’t even find that now. I haven’t found anything referring to US involvement in Bolvia.
I skimmed the guardian article. I didn’t hear about any of this at the time. This is the first I’ve heard about the OAS. I don’t support the Trump administration and it sounds like they supported what OAS did, so I probably don’t support what OAS did. If that makes you feel better. I’m certainly not an expert on every US foreign policy action or every foreign policy action by every international organization. It’s hard to have informed opinions about things I literally just learned about. I can offer first impressions, but I’m guessing those will change as I get to learn more about it. edit: typo
Quickly skimming and finding that the US is faultless is the definition of being a mark.
Great. It’s hard to keep with endless of dump of accusations that aren’t tied together in any coherent way, but I try. edit: spacing
Apologetics for OIF are just disgusting.
First I’ve heard about this too.
You are smoking crack. Libya lies in ruins with open-air slave markets and Syria remains somewhat together despite US attacks on Assad.
I was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.
It’s pure fucking doublethink.
I can read the history books thanks.
We’ve really diverged from whatever we were talking about in this comment chain. I don’t need to defend ever single thing the US has done wrong or what you think the US has done wrong to enjoy and understand the benefits of democracy. US is certainly not perfect but it beats living in a dictatorship that’s for sure. I want the US to support and defend democracies. I don’t feel the moral need to disown my country because it has screwed up, but I’m not above criticizing it either.
What each of us sees as cohesive is naturally going to diverge, but it’s good to offer thesis statements and I did not, so let me do that here:
The US is a despot in how it treats other countries. It was a despot in the 20th century and it is a despot in the 21st century. Its crimes are innumerable and frankly still overwhelming if you just focus on the big ones. Nonetheless, if someone says the US is interested in promoting “democracy,” it is necessary to bring some of the obvious counterexamples to bear.
Lastly, if you aren’t familiar with this history, it’s perfectly fine to just be quiet and either research or do something else, but to make declarations means inviting those declarations to be attacked, and making poorly-informed declarations and then being incredulous about being given information is silly.
This is the first I’ve heard about the OAS. I don’t support the Trump administration and it sounds like they supported what OAS did, so I probably don’t support what OAS did. If that makes you feel better.
Hey, that’s something, but it’s worth mentioning that the Biden administration didn’t exactly offer reparations. Thankfully, the coup regime (under Jeanine Áñez if you want a term to look up) had already crumbled before Biden took office, but based on his other actions he would have supported it just as Trump did if it lasted a few months longer so it could see his Presidency.
If you oppose Trump for reasons other than him being crass, saying bad things, and personally engaging in sex crime (the latter two being real reasons to dislike him, mind you), then it’s consistent to oppose Biden as well.
I’m certainly not an expert on every US foreign policy action or every foreign policy action by every international organization. It’s hard to have informed opinions about things I literally just learned about. I can offer first impressions, but I’m guessing those will change as I get to learn more about it.
As I said before, ignorance is not a sin, but if you aren’t aware of things, don’t make declarations about them. If you don’t have any idea what someone has been up to in the past 20 years, declaring that they have never committed a crime in their life is not a safe practice.
First I’ve heard about this too.
OIF, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the official name of the Iraq invasion. It’s easy to remember because it was supposedly first called “Operation Iraqi Liberty” before someone noticed that that spells “OIL,” which is a much better characterization of what the US was after rather than “spreading democracy”.
I was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US fled Afghanistan and the Taliban won. Mind you, while I don’t like the Taliban, it’s better for them to be in charge than the colonial occupier the US had been trying to act as for 20 fucking years. If there is to be hope for Afghanistan in the dilemma between the Taliban and US, we must agree that the local force that actually has some stake in the country doing well is the better option.
You can see why I didn’t think you meant Iraq and Afghanistan given this. As an aside, it should be noted that the US government broadly does not view the case of Libya as a failure. Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State, who oversaw the “intervention”) famously said with a cackle “We came, we saw, he died!” referring to Libya’s former head-of-state, Gaddafi, who she watched on video being sodomized to death with a bayonet while begging for mercy.
I can read the history books thanks.
Written by who? And for what institution?* We cannot be uncritical of something speaking well of the US merely because it got published somewhere and happened to be served to you.
*These are rhetorical questions, you might benefit from looking them up, but you don’t need to tell me (and if you mean school textbooks, you probably shouldn’t)
I don’t need to defend ever single thing the US has done wrong or what you think the US has done wrong to enjoy and understand the benefits of democracy.
Essentially, I am trying to draw your attention to what the US overwhelmingly is, despite your attempts to dismiss as mere trivia events that each killed tens or hundreds of thousands and impoverished millions.
You get scraps from this looting, I would never deny that, but for most of the world the US is a cancer and those two facts are connected. It would not have this loot if it was not pillaging it, and you have no say in whether or not it does if you are only following the “democracy” you applaud because both parties are the pro-war party.
US is certainly not perfect but it beats living in a dictatorship that’s for sure. I want the US to support and defend democracies. I don’t feel the moral need to disown my country because it has screwed up, but I’m not above criticizing it either.
These atrocities, committed without interruption or even a valid military engagement since the end of WW2, are not mistakes, they are not “screw ups,” they are the standard functioning of the US and inextricable from what it is. I don’t know what sort of conservative high school history courses you are operating on, but they have not served you well. That makes sense, because they aren’t made to serve you, they are made so that you will serve this machine that we’ve been discussing.
As I said before, ignorance is not a sin, but if you aren’t aware of things, don’t make declarations about them.
I’ll report on what I see when I google. If that’s a declaration so be it. I don’t see a problem with trying to get another person to pin down what they believe. Although trying to guess hasn’t been particularly effective.
OIF, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the official name of the Iraq invasion. It’s easy to remember because it was supposedly first called “Operation Iraqi Liberty” before someone noticed that that spells “OIL,” which is a much better characterization of what the US was after rather than “spreading democracy”.
I didn’t recognize the acronym, but I know about the Iraq invasion.
These atrocities, committed without interruption or even a valid military engagement since the end of WW2, are not mistakes, they are not “screw ups,” they are the standard functioning of the US and inextricable from what it is.
After WWII, the US government made deliberate foreign policy decisions they thought would benefit Americans and people abroad and then in some cases they didn’t. In some they did. The goal was to not harm as many civilians as possible. Civilian causalities are definitely a screw up. If you’re going to subscribe to a view that sees the US as inherently evil then you’re not going to have a realist view of the world or history.
The US fled Afghanistan and the Taliban won. Mind you, while I don’t like the Taliban, it’s better for them to be in charge than the colonial occupier the US had been trying to act as for 20 fucking years. If there is to be hope for Afghanistan in the dilemma between the Taliban and US, we must agree that the local force that actually has some stake in the country doing well is the better option.
The Taliban regime doesn’t care about the people living under their rule. They care about imposing their version of Islam on everyone. This is my issue with the world view I’m seeing in the comments. If what the US government has been doing bothers you on a moral level, then what a theocratic dictatorship does to its own people should bother you greatly. The hope I have for the people of Afghanistan is that they overthrow their oppressors. edit: typos
I’ll report on what I see when I google. If that’s a declaration so be it.
You know you can do things other than make nebulous assertions, right? You can say “I don’t know” or “It seems to me that” or any number of other things that aren’t just “X is the case”. If you’re ignorant about US FP, and you are, you can just not declare what its overall purpose is. No one is forcing you to do something like that!
After WWII, the US government made deliberate foreign policy decisions they thought would benefit Americans and people abroad and then in some cases they didn’t. In some they did. The goal was to not harm as many civilians as possible. Civilian causalities are definitely a screw up. If you’re going to subscribe to a view that sees the US as inherently evil then you’re not going to have a realist view of the world or history.
You did a flip-flop from your earlier (correct) claim that the US was seeking power and destroying its enemies in the 20th century, unless you think WW2 happened in 2000. They used people to their own advantage consistently, and civilian casualties were not “screw ups” because they didn’t give a shit.
I’m a Marxist, I don’t think “good” and “evil” are useful terms for analyzing the world beyond analyzing ideologies containing the ideas of “good and evil”. I don’t think the US has some sort of evil magic curse that makes it only do bad, I think that it has constructed a model of warmongering and exploitation around the world that didn’t evaporate at the stroke of Y2K. It’s an imperialist state, its basic functioning is centered on looting the third world through various means, and this is informed by its legal system and class structure.
The Taliban regime doesn’t care about the people living under their rule. They care about imposing their version of Islam on everyone. This is my issue with the world view I’m seeing in the comments. If what the US government has been doing bothers you on a moral level, then what a theocratic dictatorship does to its own people should bother you greatly. The hope I have for the people of Afghanistan is that they overthrow their oppressors.
The Taliban isn’t controlled by an idea, it is controlled by people operating on motives that are usually material. Public will and diplomatic external pressure can change things based on affecting those motives, but to the US Afghanistan is a weapon or a source of income that can be clung to or discarded (as it ultimately did). No amount of domestic unrest would persuade the US to help people, because Afghanistan just isn’t important to the US, it can’t really hurt the US.
And the Taliban’s support isn’t an idea or magic “authoritarianism” either. Most of its support was from decent people who saw it as the only viable path towards opposing US colonialism, which it ultimately successfully did. Having succeeded, the Taliban will need to find new projects that the people will support or else it will lose standing (and it had been taking up such projects of development since long before the US left).
I honestly not sure what is being referred to. Bolivia was named dropped. I couldn’t find anything about US involvement other than what sounded like a dictator making that claim. I can’t even find that now. It’s not my job to guess what your position is on this country. Make a claim and provide evidence. My attempts at trying to guess are clearly not getting me anywhere.
Are you saying Evo Morales was a dictator? Because a lot of US media might imply that, but few major papers ever said it outright because they usually try to at least pretend not to be full of shit. In reality he was a very popular democratically elected leader, and organizations established and funded by the US (and its business interests) played a critical role in the coup d’etat against him. It is not a conspiracy, there is a straight line from US influence to the coup, even if it was ultimately carried by local Bolivian business interests. In fact understand the relationship between American foreign policy objectives, multinational corporations, and local business interests is key to understanding modern neocolonialism as a whole.
I took a stab at trying to figure out what someone else was talking about when all they said was US involvement in Bolvia. It was not a lot to go on.
Yeah on closer examination it looks like Evo Morales is not a dictator. I might have misread whatever it was I found or what I found might have been about something else entirely. I am brand new to this topic. There seems to be a clear line OAS involvement from the skimming I did of the guardian article. Also, Trump seemed to give his approval to the OAS, but it seems like the OAS acts independently from the US. I could be wrong though.
On paper it acts independently, but it’s headquartered in Washington DC, and according to Wikipedia “In 2018 the [OAS]General Secretariat’s budget was $85 million of which the US contributed $50 million.” And of course, the US has always considered South America to be its “backyard” and has a long history of doing this kind of thing
Forgive me for my shorthand. There was a period when the Anez regime was the biggest news story and that is one of the only times Bolivia had been in the headlines over the last ~5 years (aside from papers attacking him right before the coup, wonder why?), so I assumed that the reference would be clearer than it was.
I am idly curious about the “what sounded like a dictator” part.
@GarbageShoot addressed everything else and debunked it, but I want to talk about this:
I don’t need to defend ever [sic] single thing the US has done wrong or what you think the US has done wrong to enjoy and understand the benefits of democracy. US is certainly not perfect [sic] but it beats living in a dictatorship that’s for sure. I want the US to support and defend democracies.
This sort of nonsense of dismissing all anti-democratic actions by the U.S. government (ex. below) by saying “I don’t need to defend everything” is absurd and ignorant.
the insertion of the dictator Syngman Rhee in south Korea; the support for the ROK’s government as it placed 188k people in prison for sympathizing with socialism/communism (Korea’s Place in the Sun, p. 349), put 70,000 leftists in concentration camps (Korea’s Place in the Sun, p. 223), and massacred tens of thousands in Jeju for protesting; the undemocratic and uneducated division of Korea (Patriots, Traitors and Empires, p. 73), etc.
inciting terrorism and supporting Nazi “stay behind” troops in countries with communist resistance movements (Italy, Greece, Germany, Turkey, etc.) with the intention of pinning this terrorism on communist movements and tricking the population into voting for the U.S.-backed parties (see Paul L. Williams’ Operation Gladio)
the support for the coup by dictator Pinochet against the popularly elected Allende in Chile
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves” - Kissenger
every single action in the Cold War that subverted democratic principles (see The Jakarta Method)
There comes a certain point when the “democracy” thesis must be questioned; in which U.S. military intervention did America “fight for democracy”? You’ve brought up Iraq and Afghanistan. What evidence is there that these were genuine pursuits for democracy? Afghanistan HAD democracy under the DRA, but the U.S. decided to undermine social reform in the country to supplant Soviet influence in the Middle East:
“The United States’ larger interest…would be served by the demise of the Taraki regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reform in Afghanistan… The overthrow of the DRA [Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviet’s view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate” (US State Department memorandum reproduced in Cockburn and St. Clair’s Whiteout, pp. 262–63).
We know that the lie of support for the Mujahideen being afforded by the U.S. merely to push back against Soviet invasion is false, since the U.S. admitted to supporting the Mujahideen at least half a year before the invasion (US Foreign Policy and the Soviet-Afghan War, Lowenstien). The volatile conditions in Afghanistan are the exact result of the U.S. fathering the Taliban for influence in the region, and the intervention in Afghanistan had no democratic results apart from furthering U.S. interests (and U.S. corporate oil interests, see Parenti’s “Afghanistan: Another Untold Story”), which were decidedly undemocratic. By the way, the U.S. is still starving people in Afghanistan.
And Iraq, this MUST be the single democratic war fought by the U.S. right? Apart from killing more people than Saddam ever did (and this is of course excluding that the U.S. supported Saddam as he gassed Iran)., giving children birth defects and cancer from depleted Uranium, s-xually abusing and torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and so on, the effect was merely “democratizing” (giving to western corporations) Iraqi oil shares. And one of your pig-dogs already admitted to the war being an imperialist bid for oil and not “democratic”:
“People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs” - Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator (1997-2009) and U.S. Secretary of Defense (2013-15)
Say that bs “oh I guess they weren’t ready for democracy” nonsense again I dare you. You don’t deserve to prance around these topics and “learn” by defending horrific atrocities and seeing what responses you get.
You know that there are death camps in North Korea to this day right? Where as South Korea does not have any death camps.
US went out of its way to stop the spread of the communism and destabilize socialist countries in the 20th century. I think these foreign policy decisions were a mistake. Our focus should be on a country’s political structure and not its economic structure.
Afghanistan HAD democracy under the DRA
One party systems are not democracy. edit: spacing
And Iraq, this MUST be the single democratic war fought by the U.S. right?
This is a straw man. I don’t agree with the war in Iraq. Read my comments if you don’t believe me. Iraq gained democracy which is the only silver lining I can think of but their government has since backslid to the detriment of the Iraqi people. Hopefully they will make a course correction.
Say that bs “oh I guess they weren’t ready for democracy” nonsense again I dare you. You don’t deserve to prance around these topics and “learn” by defending horrific atrocities and seeing what responses you get.
Democracy cannot be forced. If people don’t fight to defend it, it will be taken away. edit: grammar
I’ve spent a lot of time learning about these topics because they interest me. But I’m certainly not an expert.
You know that there are death camps in North Korea to this day right? Where as [sic] South Korea does not have any death camps.
Wow! I am shocked and appalled! May I have an article to read on this startling atrocity?
One party systems are not democracy [sic]
Democracy is entirely empty when there is no rule by the majority (i.e. class rule, of which the U.S. is ruled by an economic minority that decides candidacy under the illusory pretext of multiparty competition). The multiparty system by itself is not a guarantee of democracy nor is it the only system of democracy. There can be competing ideas within a party (especially a mass party as the PDPA), and party rule does not negate elections to party positions and mass participation. This is much more a slogan that completely misunderstands different political realities than an actual point. Terrible response to my multitude of points on Afghanistan, although I don’t know if you’re capable of anything else. Under the PDPA, equal rights for women, land reform, and public healthcare were established (Against Empire, p. 57). The king and autocracy were overthrown, labor unions were legalized, women were allowed to read and hold government positions and began literacy programs alongside poor peasants. The U.S. undid all of this by supporting terrorists and committed atrocities in order to ensure their own interests (yay democracy!).
This is a straw man. I don’t agree with the war in Iraq. Read my comments if you don’t believe me.
When you wrote that you “think what [the U.S. government] learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced.” This, in my view at least, clearly implies that the U.S. government was fighting in Iraq for democracy. Feel free to give me an alternate interpretation.
Democracy cannot be forced. If people don’t fight to defend it, it will be taken away.
This is a fine platitude, but not what I was addressing. I was specifically noting your comments I just mentioned on how these pursuits failed because “democracy cannot be forced”, i.e. the U.S. was “forcing democracy” where people were not ready for it. I categorically reject that U.S. FP is oriented towards democracy (and you’ve done nothing to prove it is), and think it is absolutely disgusting to say that this is what the U.S. needs to “learn from", that the people simply “weren’t ready” for our good will and hospitality in the form of bombs and torture. It’s whitewashing nonsense.
Bush wanted revenge for the assassination plot against his dad by Sadddam and a think tank tried to justify it with bringing democracy to Iraq. The war brought democracy, but it doesn’t seem to be lasting. Democratic institutions have to be actively maintained. Hopefully democracy will last in Iraq. And there were no weapons of mass destruction.
where people were not ready for it.
Everyone is ready for democracy. I believe everyone is capable of choosing to fight for democracy. The fact is people in Afghanistan choose not to fight for their democracy. Their military accepted bribes from the Taliban and the citizens did not rise up in response. I watched the news, it happened very quickly.
We need to learn from our mistakes. We need to do better. Throwing our hands and giving up because of moral issues is not helpful.
Bush wanted revenge for the assassination plot against his dad by Sadddam and a think tank tried to justify it with bringing democracy to Iraq.
I’m sorry but this is a childish explanation for the war in Iraq and has no material foundation. The president cannot be the only person in support of a war of this scale for it to go through, you need converging interests. Yes it’s correct the war was a continuation of Bush Sr.’s policies but that does not mean that Bush’s feelings were the only or main reason for it (and no evidence this is the case of course).
Everyone is ready for democracy. I believe everyone is capable of choosing to fight for democracy. The fact is people in Afghanistan choose not to fight for their democracy. Their military accepted bribes from the Taliban and the citizens did not rise up in response. I watched the news, it happened very quickly.
I do not care that you “watched the news.” America was NOT fighting for democracy in Afghanistan (I explained this and cited sources, apparently no need to reply to this). The Taliban was an anti-democratic American creation through the Mujahideen. Read Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent on why “watching the news” isn’t adequate.
We need to learn from our mistakes. We need to do better. Throwing our hands and giving up because of moral issues is not helpful.
Maybe the nation that inspired Nazi Germany and was built on racism and exclusionary liberation, that killed a million in Indonesia and [3.3 million in Korea, millions in Laos, 2.4 million in Iraq, etc.] and used Korean women for s-xual slavery en masse (Patriots, Traitors, and Empires, p. 33) is not some sweet teddy bear that “made some mistakes.” Maybe reform isn’t the answer. Maybe the U.S. isn’t endeavoring to “do better” (they’ve been quite successful in their goals, and I’ve yet to see any proof of good intention from the U.S.), and maybe these “moral issues” are indicative of a larger issue. Nobody is “learning from their mistakes.” The U.S. military is as violent as ever, helping Saudi Arabia carry out a genocide in Yemen with military support for instance. Where is this apologetic sweetheart you see? Fuck America and fuck everything it stands for. They haven’t even apologized for half of this shit.
This comment is a great example of the “insight” that you find on that instance. Random insults that don’t make much sense unless you uncritically agree with the most boot licking China / Russia defenders.
It’s not insulting, it’s just boring. It’s like bots repeating old Chapo comments from different articles, none of which make sense.
Right…so are you saying you agree with that or do you not understand what is you posted? People from Hexbear, like yourself, are defending the Taliban and North Korea in this comment section. That’s boot licking if I ever saw it. (also fuck tankies)
Read “Brainwashing”—and since you immediately dismissed my well-sourced and thoroughly explained response to your “death camps in north kora” (lmao) comment with the thought terminating “they’re defending north korea so I’m right” cliche, read “Masses, Elites, and Rebels” as well
Read Parenti’s Inventing Reality
Read Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas” - Karl Marx
You still haven’t explained how America is “learning from their mistakes”, or given any proof that they’ve stopped their imperialist pursuits (much less actually refuted my example of Yemen), haven’t apologized for your cowardly defense of the War in Afghanistan (and of course didn’t address the examples of horrific atrocities committed by the U.S. which @sunset linked), nor addressed really anything I said on this except for a single comment where you made an idiotic argument about “one party” with no understanding of Afghanistan’s political realities (or really anything for that matter). Stop acting smug you awful chauvinist cracker.
Boot licking as you defend american imperialism? Are you gonna defend shit like this to where america pretty much just terrorizes school children? like here theintercept.com/…/afghanistan-cia-militia-01-str…
honestly, fuck you, I didn’t want to say anything but people who defend american imperialism, pisses me the fuck off. You whine about tankies and shit, meanwhile you defend american imperialism that responsible for so much evil, woe and trouble in the world. its funny how you defend america when america hates its own fucking people. literally the country with the biggest incarceration population on the planet, but surely america believes in “freedom” and “democracy”. also what, freedom to starve on the streets? freedom to be homeless? freedom to get into medical debt? that fucking freedom? meanwhile those “authoritarian” like aes countries are more free than america will ever be.
also just want to point something else out but since you care so much about “terrorists”. how do you feel knowing people join up with some of those terrorist groups just so they can defend their homeland because they saw america kill their friends, family, children, and so on? also how you defend some american soldiers doing shit like shotting children just for playing in the streets? fuck right off.
Sure you don’t approve of drone striking or killing civilians as you support said actions indirectly in the name of killing “terrorists” or bringing “democracy”. Maybe use those critical thinking skills of yours and think for a moment? Maybe you should go read about all the american atrocities that america does when it is bringing “democracy” or killing “terrorists” like Abu Ghraib for starters. It sure is “strange” how these atrocities keep happening every time america out bringing “democracy” or killing “terrorists”. I wonder why that could be?
Also america pretty authoritarian, and it’s weird that criticism and critical thinking seems to stop as soon as we reach authoritarian countries like America. I mean it’s not like america is the home of mass shooting, the genocide of indigenous people (that still ongoing), home of slavery and mass racism. Home to lots of nasty shit. What do you think of things where America did things like MK ultra to american and canadian citizens? Experimenting on someone own citizens with no consent is pretty authoritarian no? Hell besides that, I’d argue it’s pretty authoritarian how countries like america allow homelessness to exist or refuse to provide proper medical care for it’s people (not without extreme medical debt), or how about the entire prison and justice system? Everything you can accuse of spoopy authoritarian countries doing, america has done it or is doing it.
Like your a fool if you truly believe America is free and democratic. All it tells me you never been on the wrong side of America and experience it’s worst side.
I am getting on you because has it maybe ever occurred to you that I don’t know. Main stream media lies about those spooky authoritarian countries? That they aren’t telling the full truth? That they lie, twist or manipulate? If you have critical thinking skills, you would realize that. You would realize that hey, maybe it’s not true what they say about DPRK or China or wherever else. I mean want an example of media lying? They lied saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What about the Nayirah testimony? Or in recent times are how like covid suddenly over, the pandemic no longer exists? Despite covid being around? How about the constant downplaying of things like climate change? Hell what about the lies about Ukraine how their suddenly no Nazi’s in Ukraine, despite how main stream media, was talking about those Nazi’s in Ukraine. Funny enough, even the american military was concerned about that. Don’t believe me? Have a read. ctc.westpoint.edu/the-nexus-between-far-right-ext…
but hey feel free to think your smug and superior here because you think you got critical thinking skills as you fall hook line and sinker for propaganda bullshit. Which you can’t entirely be too blame since United States is really good at propaganda. Like maybe at least realize you’re not getting the full truth about things and investigate further, but there no point. I put way too much effort into this when I shouldn’t have.
Also the U.S. has the highest number of prisoners on earth (in both proportion and totality). Bad countries are authoritarian though, good countries (the U.S. in this case) are wholesome teddy bears that just happen to use s-x slavery in their occupied bases, kill millions of people, lie about their real motives, torture innocents (with Guantanamo Bay still open)and gun down dissidents in other countries because they were just trying too hard to bring democracy to the hordes who begged for U.S. “charity.” We’ll do better next time guys!
This comment is a great example of the “insight” that you find on that instance. Random insults that don’t make much sense unless you uncritically agree with the most boot licking China / Russia defenders.
It’s not insulting, it’s just boring. It’s like bots repeating old Chapo comments from different articles, none of which make sense. 5
This comment is a great example of the “insight” that you find on that instance. Random insults that don’t make much sense unless you uncritically agree with the most boot licking China / Russia defenders.
It’s not insulting, it’s just boring. It’s like bots repeating old Chapo comments from different articles, none of which make sense.
I’ll get around to the comment you addressed to me but:
You know that there are death camps in North Korea to this day right?
Death camps are camps used for killing people, usually in a semi-industrialized fashion. The DPRK has never had these. It has prison labor, but that’s not the same. South Korea also has prison labor.
it’s about the platform and the majority membership, not a judgment of every community that exists there. there are quite obviously cool corners on reddit, but the platform as a whole defends bigotry as free speech, at an admin level.
It does seem like the admin level is an issue when it comes to reddit and racism. This is easier to observe as there are fewer admins than users. I do want to see some kind of data to be convinced it is the majority of people on reddit. I only have my personal experience to go on. I remember fondly how conservatives bemoaned that reddit was dominated by liberals. So from my personal experience the racists were the minority. I could be wrong though, because I don’t have political census data on redditors.
I remember fondly how conservatives bemoaned that reddit was dominated by liberals.
Tories have also complained since the beginning of time about how the BBC has a supposed leftwing bias, and no amount of slandering leftists by the BBC has dissuaded them of that. Conservatives just want to feel persecuted.
“Trans friendly” is a weird way to say creepy chasers, the amount of overt sexualisation and objectification of trans people from non-trans people there is horrendous.
You’re reading too hard into the reddit=stormfront thing. It’s just a common leftist refrain off-reddit because 90% of the site is pro-nato white supremacy and nationalism even if a handful of communities might be slightly less bad.
most of the posts there make my skin crawl. im basically a boomer at this point in the trans community (10+ years transitioned), younger trans people really need to learn what fake allies look like. just because theyre nice/sexualize you doesnt mean they actually support you. i know when the world hates your guts the bar is low, but you need to make that bar high for your own good.
Add comment