Remember when Obama saw the largest transfer of wealth away from black US citizens to the wealthy in the history of the United States?
Remember when he set the precedent that it us cool to assassinate US citizens in the open (as opposed to covertly) without trial?
Honestly I get being mad at "Obama's biggest controversy was the mustard"
Obama’s biggest controversy was the mustard
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).
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 mean… no? Sarcasm works in multiple ways lol. This is like a children’s picture book-level of understanding of sarcasm.
ok, this has gone over my head. can you explain what she meant? her "joke" reads like a retreading of stale
memes from /r/politics.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 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.
Never argue with someone from Hexbear. They're all at least comfortable with being in a community overrun by tankie trolls.
But OP never made any argument, so they are fine. :comfy-cool: :tank: :troll:
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.
Are you so poorly educated that you think Obama was responsible for the crash that caused that transfer of wealth?
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.
it's such an unfunny joke I had to read it three times to even understand what she was trying to say
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
Don't forget Boko Haram got their start of Libya's destruction too.
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.
Some people are. This particular people has absolutely no excuse for such ignorance lol
I didn’t post it because her joke was funny lol
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
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.
She does streaming, I think.
I agree they all should log off instead.
sure, but I'm not convinced the people making the jokes care any more about civilian deaths, either.
Natalie's inability to own up to mistakes is either a serious character flaw or
I don't think that that is a flaw she has is in question at this point tbh
Studied Philosophy as a PhD. That's one of the biggest flaws a human could have.
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.
Its great that the Obama post got her dunked on by Ethereal Bisexual
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
Time for her to make another 4 hour video about how she was 1984'd into deleting a tweet.
that joke is so overused i don't even think the libs over at r/politics finds it funny anymore
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
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.
Libs on /r/politics only make jokes about the Ork-shaped Slavic Brainpan and how many indictments Trump is currently under.
She's always been lib, sadly. I still love her content tho! But her political takes are def a little ehh
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 -
is way cooler imocontra'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.
Yeah, I think I could stand her if she would just admit that she was wrong for once, about any of it
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)
In other words - PT is Contrapoints, but it's good instead of whiny liberal asslicking.
Could you please correct the misgendering in your post? PT uses she/her pronouns exclusively.
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'm pretty sure the person you were responding to is also trans like me and presumably you
I think it's a joke - it's an absurd comparison so I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously
If I had a nickel for every time it happened I've have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
She went fully lib like two or three years ago and has not had even a trace of being a socialist since.
last I heard, he relapsed into Marianne Williamson electoralism. get well soon, Chairman Daou
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.
can someone please explain why the word rule appears in titles so often
/r/196's thing is its a "rule" that you have to post something whenever you visit the sub. And most people post "rule" when they do so.
This comm is just reusing the tic.
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.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stormfront
And /r/196 is a leftist meme posting subreddit that is trans friendly.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=r%2F196
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 long running hexbear joke to compare Reddit to stormfront given how racist and white it is
That's why the emoji booty used is called :reddit-logo :
Who was the person who killed salve owners? I honestly do not know the history of the original sub.
196 was creepy and chaser-y about trans folks?
Also the
emoji is just making fun of how openly or (poorly) covertly white supremacist reddit is in general.196 was creepy and chaser-y about trans folks?
Not from what I've heard. edit:spacing
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.
Are you talking about this guy?
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/vaush
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.
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? :/
The West has the right to defend itself. As does everyone.
NATO has intervened to stop genocide.
NATO is in fact a defensive alliance. Here is article 5.
"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 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.
quoting Parenti here:
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"
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
Here's a handy guide for you explaining your views in the future:
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.
sure were amazing defensive actions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq
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.
So this is the PPB right? What do you think this achieves besides sharing a funny picture? Or is it just a way to mark me for being swarmed?
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 observed baseline for libs on reddit is defending
as if it's a left wing position because the republicans are 'worse', with lots of unexamined western chauvinism piled on top, and hostile 
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
https://www.newsweek.com/obama-responsible-libyan-slave-trade-730875
CW: Worst mistake?
Obama: Probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.
From the article you just posted, I clicked the link to read what he actually said, and I read it as he expressed regret for not intervening more!
It's like criminals expressing regret for getting caught.
Yeah, I think he didn't want to leave Libya in the mess it was in. That's my assessment at a glance.
Feel free to ignore what he actually said. My assessment is he feels bad because it made him look bad politically.
I think you should be more judicious about who you're dunking on tbh. This person seems well intentioned enough.
ETA: I take this back.
This person seems well intentioned enough.
[edit]: I take this back.
Lol
i just felt like bein mean and i got lucky. but my guess was informed by the fact that they're a redditor.
"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.
r/196 kinda gives me Vaush vibes in that way (and also in the radlibbiness ofc)
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.
That seems to be the case. Other people are indicating it was joke and not even one directed at on 196. It's certainly new to me anyway.
its because there used to be a stormfront subreddit on reddit for like 10 years or something before it got banned, and that was their logo.
And /r/196 is a leftist meme posting subreddit that is trans friendly.
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.
I only know about r/196 what I've read about it from other sources. You'll be happy to know we don't do that here. This is a trans friendly space.
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
zone, too. I'm just voicing my own experiences with the reddit sub.
I think stormfront the user, Stormfront the right wing website, and Stormfront the Apple store are all 3 seperate entities.
I think you got them mixed up. I hope you mixed them up and they aren't somehow connected anyway.
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.
it's a joke about reddit's tendency towards racism and other bigotry, not the literal stormfront website.
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.
yeah its a joke making fun of a large portion of reddit
you're giving real "all lives matter" vibes with this response
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.
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.
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
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'm ethnically Russian thanks. My family where Russian-Jewish fur traders from Siberia. I don't have anything against the Russian people.
Communists and Capitalists saved the world together.
No, I care about what happens across national borders.
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.
I hope you're getting something out of directing your arguments at me. I know I'm getting a good laugh out of it.
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.
free press
A press thats 100% controlled by the capitalist class and expresses their interests cannot reasonably be described as free.
Read a non-profit news source then.
https://www.propublica.org/
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.
Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation
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. =)
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.
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
I think you'll find that goes both ways. We can defend ourselves too. You are not on Hexbear. This is Blahaj.
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.
Defend what?
ourselves
they know jack shit about what those people actually think
I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
I'm not sure how they can be if they think everyone to the right of them is a liberal.
But defend yourselves from what?
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
But defend yourselves from what?
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
https://www.citizen.org/news/progressive-policies-are-popular-policies/
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
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?
Weirdly I can see the actions you're describing as wrong, but still understand the benefits of American democracy.
Just so we can move on and not talk in circles, is that you tacitly admitting that the US FP is not about "supporting democracy"?
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.
From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator
The actual coup sounds like it was a conspiracy theory? Or US involvement?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/silence-us-backed-coup-evo-morales-bolivia-american-states
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
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:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
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).
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.
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)
The fact is people in Afghanistan choose not to fight for their democracy.
this you, colonizer?
keep posting please you're showing us evil authoritarians who the real champion of the people is
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 https://theintercept.com/2020/12/18/afghanistan-cia-militia-01-strike-force/
also how do you feel about shit like this? https://www.salon.com/2015/02/14/i_no_longer_love_blue_skies_what_life_is_like_under_the_constant_threat_of_a_drone_attack_partner/
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.
I don't approve drone striking civilians or killing civilians for that matter.
It's weird that the criticism and critical thinking seem to stop as soon as we reach authoritarian countries.
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. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-nexus-between-far-right-extremists-in-the-united-states-and-ukraine/
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.
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.
Edit: Regarding your article, aside from HRW being literally purpose-built for laundering those sorts of stories and the "evidence" being an office in the UN submitting something for discussion, South Korea also has accusations against it of torturing political prisoners.
Still no death camps in "north kora"
From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator.
Wut
Please, would you explain yourself
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.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
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 completely agree, do you see why I linked it in response to the use of authoritarian?
Authority isn't necessarily bad. For example, suppressing the free speech and ability to congregate for nazis is good.
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?
I know what the Nazis did thanks.
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?
Yes.
I know what the Nazis did thanks.
You sure don't fucking act like it if your comparing what they did to suppressing fascism.
Yes.
During the protests and not absolutely surrounded by gun wielding guards.
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.
Damn, I really had faith you were well intentioned. I'm disappointed.
Honestly I don't even know why you're here if you're so happy with Reddit's moderation policies.
We moderate tankys here too. Welcome to 196.
I'm mad at the corporate take over of reddit. The shitification if you will. edit:typo
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.
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
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.
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.
They do have a persecution complex, I'll give you that. =D
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
hence the stormfront joke
twitter is really good at making words and phrases meaningless through extreme hyperbole rule
Can I ask whats being made meaningless here? I hope you don't mean "war criminal". Because drone bombing a wedding is definitely a war crime.
Maybe you mean Contra's joke though idk lol
Natalie should know better. But also... the really nasty shit under Obama was heavily under-reported and only ever seemed to penetrate media in a select few circuits. Casually tossing off a "What even did Obama do that was so bad?" is almost forgivable if you're not a terminally online 30-year-old who makes hour long YouTube videos about politics, history, and culture.
Am I reading this wrong? I assume Natalie is making a joke about how people under report Obama's nasty shits
I think she's joking about how people over-report his trivial shit. But it can be read as blithely ignoring the monstrous crimes Obama did commit while in office, because it echoes a lot of the liberal apologia of the administration that amounted to "The worst thing Obama ever did was wear a tan suit".
While I don't think she has talked about Obama's war crimes or things adjacent to it, I find it hard to believe that she would be saying that seriously especially the both sides part. Tho her response to the criticism doesn't make it better.
You're reading it wrong, she's stating you can't make a moral equivalence between Obama and, say, Trump or something because supposedly the worst things obama did were silly.
Observation selection bias is an easy one the GOP likes to take advantage of. Eg: not testing for covid to show covid went down.
Also: drone strike civilian casualties.
Not testing for covid to show it went down is the current strategy of the Biden admin
Lol. Look at this galaxy brain equivicating there start of a pandemic with an endemic with vaccine.
I mean, obviously the covid hospital occupancy rates would be identical if the actual case rate was the same.
Oh wait...
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-hospitalizations
What's that? Less then 10k vs over 140k? Definitely the exact same situation! /s
Don't trip over yourself making excuses now
Hospital rates are down because we killed a lot of people and the rest aren't being recorded as covid.
I know people who very recently have caught and have had their bodies permanently damaged by this disease within the last few months, one of them being a family member who did everything right, so the whole "lol no big deal it's endemic now" shit is really fucking depressing, ngl. It kind of handwaves away a very real pain people are going through.
