https://hexbear.net/comment/3769474
The difference is that China did it to their own people
The classic Nazi talking point, I love this one!
Stalin is worse than Hitler because Stalin killed his own people!
Show
Also the PRC was founded in 1949, I really don't understand how someone can bring up the Mongol Empire and link that to Mao Zedong.
The classic Nazi talking point, I love this one!
Umm achually they identify as a socialist, they're just "anti-authoritarian". You tankies wouldn't understand
This one gets me the most.
"Tankie" literally just is a slur for socialists in modern parlance. It's basically just like calling someone "Anarkiddie"
It means fucking nothing and is used as a lazy reason for dissmissing one's views and goals.
"Tankie" and "authoritarianism" are two everclear signifiers that a person is talking out of their ass.
Edit: and whataboutismlol yeah they hit lib bingo in that one post
also calling Mao's revolution "conquest" like bruh the only place that could even possibly apply to is Tibet and they were literally a SLAVE STATE. Fuck Tibet I'm glad they got liberated.
I really wish we had a :lib-bingo: emote. Might have to design one. What else would be on it tho?
Why do they think it matters who was killed? Is this some nationalism brain thing I am too anti-imperialism brained to understand?
They believe Intentional genocide is not as bad as a famine in your own country.
The inherent idea there being "Nations have an overriding moral duty to their own people, the rest are acceptable losses compared to one's own."
It's nationalistic and borderline fascist trash.
I am sorry, but the Asian brainpan has not meaningfully evolved in that timescale -
the Yuan under Kubilai can be interpretted in roughly modern china's shape, even a bit bigger, though the specific borders of china were laid out under the Qing & PRC.
the Qing scholars do like to point out that the Qing presented themselves to their varying ethnicities in different ways though, they very purposefully justified their rule in mongolia in chinggisid terms, trying to make themselves the worthy successor of mongol world empire. their campaigns against the dzunghar were about snuffing out a competing claim for the overlordship of the mongol groups on the steppe & in tibet
oh but yeah the OP was hilariously wrong, chinggis did not complete the conquest of china lol
Also the PRC was founded in 1949, I really don't understand how someone can bring up the Mongol Empire and link that to Mao Zedong.
It's all because we built that time machine to go forward in time to steal American 5G technology. We may have messed up a few historical details on the way back...
"People" vs "your own people".
Oh yeah it's that liberal thought cliche where the lives of people in other countries don't matter.
Crazy what goes on in their minds.
For me it is worser when you do it to others, I can not know their internal struggle, so they ended up in a bad place and convinced it is necessary.
They were driven out
They were killed. It's crazy how genocide enjoyers will sneak in the subtlest genocide apologia every chance they get.
Erm, yikes! I'm pretty sure that's not true. This is what we learned in history class:
Show
Show
That's fake right? This isn't really a children's schoolbook, right?
Though as an Australian, we're taught that our country was "uninhabited" and the Aboriginals "didn't use most of the land and left it for the settlers." So...yeah, we've probably got a couple of these books floating around here too.
"First Nations" suggests this is a Canadian text book of some kind, and given that they're currently engaged in at least one "land dispute" that would be a war of aggression if international law was good for anything other than toilet paper, and a number of other disputes with First Nations people, I'd say this might be real.
Ah yes, That country. The other one that usually gets forgotten when it comes to discussions of brutal slaughter of natives because they were quieter about it.
They're the polite North Americans so of course they did their genociding in a polite way.
They're the polite North Americans so of course they did their genociding in a polite way.
Oh indeed. A fun one to read up on is the expulsion of the Acadians. The proto-Canadian Brits decided to literally ship off francophone inhabitants of what are now the Maritime Provinces, so that British settlers could move in and have ready-to-use houses, farms, businesses, etc. It was small in terms of total number of people affected, but ranks damn high on percentage of those affected. Living conditions on the ships used were appalling even by the standards of the day. It was a coin toss if someone who went aboard would arrive at their destination alive.
A lot of survivors made their way to New Orleans and the surrounding area in the US, because it had a large francophone population already. The word "Cajun" is an evolution of "Acadien".
Y'know it's funny.
I'm not from North America and I came across some discussion about Cajun cuisine just the other day and I was like "Hm... I wonder where all the Cajuns came from exactly" and I leaned about the ethnic cleansing of francophone Acadians.
I never knew that the death rate of the people being forcibly removed though, that's pretty horrific (and I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise.)
Oh yeah, and don't forget that Aboriginal people never had permanent settlements either!
That's fake right? This isn't really a children's schoolbook, right?
Yeah, we weren't taught about any of the varied social structures and ways of life of the Aboriginal people, just vague "they were hunter gatherers" oversimplification. At "best" it would've been some dances with wolves "They were one with nature." Bullshit.
Nothing about settled farmers, nothing about semi-nomadic agriculturalists, nothing about the eel farmers that had been building and maintaining the same fish traps and dams for tens of thousands of years (the same dams and fish traps the white settlers destroyed to build their houses with the stones). Nothing about Silvaculture, or inter tribal relations and communications, or how the tribes in the north traded with Indonesia for millennia.
It was all "They were peaceful hunter-gatherers who lived off the land but didn't cultivate it." I have heard that things have been changing since I was in school, but I have my doubts, especially since so many teachers can treat Aboriginal history as "woke bullshit" and not teach their class properly.
Yeah, I don't remember Terra Nullis being a part of the curriculum when I was in school, but I do remember a lot of people my age and older stating it as a "matter of fact."
It does seem to have shifted to the standard "They didn't use the land effectively" which was taught when I was in school.
The puritans but they're also
mobsters: "real nice Plymouth Rock you've got here. Sure would be a shame if someone were to settle it"
Uhh pretty sure the answer to 4 is wrong, that's supposed to be, "disease, betrayal, mass slaughter, the opposite of the rest of this sentence," [and protection]
disease
Um, excuse me but we brought them soap doncha know?
Show
/s (btw how hideous is the message of that advertisement??)
The people telling you communism goes against human nature also tell you it's human nature for a nation to slaughter people for land. Just normal human nature shit.
Jesus what a fucking terrible argument. I'm sure the native americans were just happy white people weren't killing other white people. "At least it's intentional," they thought as they were being driven from their land.
Every time I hear someone try to claim things are human nature (greed, cruelty, selfishness, etc) I just interpret it as a confession of that person having those traits and an attempt to project that unto the rest of society to feel better about it.
One thing I like to do to really leave the libs shooketh to deconstruct that argument of "But greed will always be a part of humanity!!" is by telling them that if we look over history, murder has always been a feature of humanity.
But do we award the murderers with the most money, political power, and prestige in society? (I know exactly where your mind goes to when I say this but stick with me for a minute and remember that this is when I'm talking on the role of Lib Whisperer.) Or as a society do we actively take steps to mitigate the murderous impulses of humanity by disincentivising it, condemning it, and punishing those who commit murder?
Why then would you do something different with a negative and destructive impulse like greed? Why would you reward it, encourage it, and give the most political power and the most prestige to the greediest people in society?
Who would want to live in that sort of world?
If they object to this notion because they are suffering from a deficit of imagination, you can point to the potlatch ceremony, in which certain societies would give the most prestige in their communities to the people who gave the most to the community in these ceremonies, where people would sometimes even effectively bankrupt themselves in the pursuit of prestige within their communities.
I usually tell a person like that they should stop making pronouncements about all of humanity because they've clearly never stepped outside their comfortable little bubble long enough to realise that, shockingly, different societies do things differently and whatever they say about humanity is just a reflection of their own narrow cultural biases.
But do we award the murderers with the most money, political power, and prestige in society?
But murder is bad, with greed I'm just exercising my natural right to private property
Terry Pratchett on greed and fucking people over:
Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"
"Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.
"What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"
"I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game."I'm reading Making Money to my kid before bed time right now.
Moist probably killed more than 2.338 people though
Nice! I feel like the Von Lipvig series are very kid friendly. Are you doing a Pratchett run thru, or is it just making money? Because Wyrd sisters and witche abroad and the "I shall wear midnight" series are great for kids as well.
Edit: and Diggers!I love all his books. Vimes were my initial favorite but I feel like the Mort ones were the most compelling. Wyrd sisters are absolutely hilarious, too.
He's a little young to really pick up on any of the jokes so I'll read a paragraph and talk through it with him. He's unconcious after like 3 pages. Planning to expand out as he gets older
Mort was my favorite!
That sounds so sweet! You must have a fantastic patience.I mean Vetinari is a tyrant and a member of an aristocratic elite, but he is always scheming and working to take down the oppressive power structures. Dude works against creating an empire and then works against putting down a left-wing rebellion in his city.
If he's a socialist he's either some sort of incrementalist or accelerationist. Either way he's played brilliantly by Charles Dance
i remember when i was studying my LLB my lecturer used the fucking tragedy of the commons in like the second semester to justify private property rights
By private property, do you mean like land, or your phone, with the data on it? I can understand sharing land, but I would want to keep my phone private.
He's a communist so he's making the distinction between private property and personal property. In this context:
Personal property is your personal effects and your home and your car etc.
Private property is stuff like businesses, factories, companies - all the things which are used to produce goods and services.
That sounds like it would get confusing when trying to encourage people to be communist.
Not really, private property is Capital and the means of production that reproduces society, by its very nature requiring labor its already a collective social phenomenon
Personnel property on the other hand is just that, 'personal', its stuff that doesn't require economic social relations with other human beings to use
The confusion comes from personal and private property being conceptually tangled after a lifetime of bourgeois conditioning.
I wouldn't deny that.
I think the thing is that communists especially tend to cling to their names for specialised concepts dearly, although you see this with anarchists too—just mention the terms "libertarian" or "anarcho-capitalism" and they're likely to quote that Murray Rothbard passage about how "their side" had "captured the term [libertarian] from our enemies" and how "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical", but I digress—and that's because a whole lot of Marxist theory rests upon these words that are specialised terms to signify Marxist concepts, such as the term "imperialism" which means a lot more than just "an empire expanding itself".
It does make it difficult for an outsider to start engaging with Marxist theory because it requires a fair bit of reading up and there's a trap that some Marxists fall into when discussing these concepts where they use Marxist-specific terms to outsiders who aren't aware of the Marxist definitions and concepts yet they expect those outsiders to just know what they're talking about, which leads to people talking across one another.
I guess the other option would be to abandon those Marxist-specific terms which would mean that newer writing wouldn't align to the preceding Marxist theory and there would be a need to bring everyone up to speed on the new terms being used for the same concepts, but trying to get consensus on what new terms should be used would be an impossible task given the fact that it's not uncommon for different Marxist tendencies to be bitter enemies (for example, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists [i.e. "Stalinists"]) and there's the belief that it would be a capitulation and it would be ceding ground to liberalism by doing so.
I think that the prevailing notion is that Marxists need to do the reading and to get across these concepts in order to really consider themselves Marxist and while that has its own downsides it also makes it more difficult for infiltration from fascists and feds because when someone hasn't done the reading it stands out like a sore thumb to those who have.
I can't find the CIA documents off hand at the moment but there was a memo lamenting how difficult it is for CIA agents to infiltrate radical groups (I think anarchist ones) because it's like they're speaking a different language when they talk politics lol.
these terms were specifically recuperated. the confusion about private property was deliberately created to prevent class solidarity. the original meaning of the term was the Marxist one and there's no better term to replace it with. "means of production" is even more technical and prone to confusion.
prior to Marx, Locke and Smith used the term property without adjectives exclusively and the former argued that humans had a natural right to property. Marx distinguished personal and private property. liberal economists then picked it up and started using private property in the same sense that Locke and Smith had used property. it's a bit hard to cite this as search engines just turn up liberal economists. but that's the gist of it.
The problem with abandoning specific terms is that it gives into the liberal mentality of words needing to be more "vibe based" than having clear definitions. This is how we get meaningless buzzwords like "authoritarian" and "whataboutism"
And ultimately, if we did make a new set of terms to use and somehow managed to agree upon them, the liberal media would just water those terms down as they have done for most Marxists terms before that.
The important thing is to explain terms as you go through them. I usually explain the concept, then just use the word to describe that concept, so they know what I'm talking about.
I would say in educating people it is important to talk directly with them first before giving them any theory to read though, because as you've pointed out, a lot of people don't actually know the meaning of a lot of words and would just get confused and frustrated. It makes it a slow process, but there isn't really any other option right now. At least where I am in the west, anti-intellectualism is huge. You have to drag people kicking and screaming into learning things, or do so via presenting it in a format they will consume without thinking (like fiction).
"Your honor, you must aquit. For you see I intentionally killed my neighbor for their land!"
Really shows just how vile they are. They honestly think everyone else is as cruel and disgusting as they are.
Smallpox blankets were normal human nature. After all, we are apparently animals with no higher cognitive functions of empathy.
Literally one step from saying gas chambers are human nature, jfc.
We fuckin tried to be diplomatic with these people and they called me a Nazi so now you all have our blessing to go forth and dunk
Fuck these fucking people.
They seem to think that being an Anarchist just means being anti-communist. To the point that they are literally parroting fascist taking points about "our people". As if Jackson killing millions of Native Americans to steal their land is somehow not as bad as mismanagement of agricultural policy during a drought/famine? Because Jackson only oppressed the other right. Because a leader's job isn't to build a better world by harnessing the labor and skills of all people, but to either exterminate the other to protect their own or liquidate nature and the proletariat for profit
Every radlib thinks they got it all figured out til an actual anarchist shows up and then they all suddenly turn into Nazis
An an ML, I want to say I genuinely feel bad that Anarchists have to deal with this bullshit. Like, I can't imagine being an Anarchist and having so many illiterate liberals claim their ideology while spewing reprehensible, absurd bullshit. Anarchists are comrades I respect and have principled disagreements with, but these guys? What the fuck.
It's not really any different from all the people that say they are socialists, marxists, communists and democratic socialists and then when you poke and prod them they are basically following neoliberal ideology for like 90% but then they sprinkle in some insane bullshit like Georgism and that's their entire basis. People know that neoliberalism/liberalism/fascism and all those things are bad, they know those things are rude so they'll just change the language mix up some non important things and call it a day. Same with Anarchists, it's some person but they post ACAB and think that makes them an anarchist. Like they know that the cops are bad but they still really like hierarchies like patriarchy, white supremacy and economic hierarchy.
Like clockwork. They don't want to have to question their reality. They want to sit complacently at the end of history and watch the suffering around them with glib detachment or, when scratched, vociferous participation.
There's no redeeming these groups, only hopefully some of the people in them. 196 will always be tainted because of it's absolute inability to moderate itself. Sometimes you need aggressive purging of the ranks and the stench of 196 shows exactly what happens when you don't take out the trash.
So Bookchin himself had some pretty terrible takes of course, but maybe he was onto something with the whole "lifestylist" critique.
Where social anarchism called upon people to rise in revolution and seek the reconstruction of society, the irate petty bourgeois who populate the subcultural world of lifestyle anarchism call for episodic rebellion and the satisfaction of their 'desiring machines'...
He definitely got the treat obsession part right
Didn't they go on to identify as a socialist too or something? Lmao what no theory does to a mf
"The native American Genocide wasn't that bad, because they weren't considered human"
Sincere post - am I doing something harmful to myself or my psyche? Am I being too insular in staying away from the mental sewer pipes of
, twitter, etc in search of places where I don't see this shit? Should I desensitize myself a little to people like this? Because I tend to avoid people like this. In real life, I'm careful to only stay close with people who are, at their core, kind and loving and empathic. I also do this online.I hate this person. I truly do, and every other sniveling, servile, cowardly, shithead like them. I don't like hating this person, and I don't like hating people at all. I'll always hate
, but it's no moral crime to hate your oppressor. For this person, my hatred feels more real and visceral and it makes me uncomfortable.A few years ago I visited White Sands National Park. To get there I had to drive through Alamogordo, a town that seems to mostly exist to service the nearby air force base. On the main tourist track that leads to the park, I passed a kind of mini strip mall set up alongside the road. It was all run-down buildings or shacks or roadside tents covered in native American symbolism with shitty names that I don't care to repeat, selling trinkets and baubles. The people working there all looked, at a glance, to be native American as well. An entire culture reduced to selling bits of "authentic Indian silver" or whatever to scratch out a living. The survivors of a genocide trying to make some money off of the bits of their culture that can be commodified. This is my first time ever discussing that sight, and it's still hard to articulate it. The feeling was so heavy, so suffocating, such a powerful sense of wrongness and injustice that it defies my limited powers of this language to communicate. An entire continent of people - dozens of cultures and languages and histories and peoples slaughtered and displaced and deposited at the edges of a new society that would prefer them gone and relegated to black-and-white photos.
So, GBU_28 is trying to handwave away what America did because Ghengis Khan did it as well. Native Americans weren't "noble savages" by any means. I'm sure they fought and inflicted cruelty and callousness on their fellow man just as all peoples have done. But we stole this place. In its entirety. This entire nation, as well as its equally savage brother-country to the north, ground up the first peoples' bones to use in the foundational concrete. Mods remove this if it's too much, but I truly hope that GBU_28 suffers in this life. I'm fully convinced that this person who I've never met and I never will should truly be subject to the worst agonies and miseries conceivable by the human mind. No physical or emotional torment could compare with what they're trying to "yada yada yada" away.
It can't be good for me.
If it is any consolation, they are still here, they are still alive and we are fighting for their continued existence and to undo those wrongs. Even if they are too brutal and immeasurable to ever be fully undone.
https://twitter.com/ChunkaLuta1973 If you want to follow us, and follow the Red Road, then here is a place to start.
Yeah that person sucks but they're also a moron. They also obviously think they're smarter than they are and are trying to impress people.
Hopefully its a sheltered kid who is still trying to make sense of the world around them. Someone drowned in american exceptionalism since birth and with little suffering of their own maybe can't quite grip yet the horrors the US has enacted.
Maybe not though.
Either way they should keep their fucking mouth shut.
Idk about hatred, but it's okay to be angry, especially if you have healthy ways of channeling that righteous anger.
The whole "Manifest Destiny is innocent because colonialism is just human nature" is very popular with Amerikkkans. I've heard this same shit from grade school to the workplace.
They fucking love essentializing their national crimes as products of evolutionary behavior so they can pat themselves on the back for "overcoming" their "natural" urges while being flabbergasted about the oppressed for wanting accountability from the still existing regime that perpetrated it (and still is!).
The US is what would happen if Nazi Germany survived for over 200 years.
We have the same continuous government that did ALL of those things. There has NEVER been a cleaning of house.
human nature is when you act like an american, and the more american you act, the more human you are
ha ha psych a row of american bodies 1,111,111 miles long no mercy for the yankee dog
Is this guy implying that Genghis Khan...conquered land on behalf of China? Am I reading that right? Are they seriously that historically illiterate?
I guess it's not an accident. This is deliberate.
I guess if you stuck your head up your own ass until you turned yourself inside out you could say that modern China is somehow a successor state of the Mongolian Yuan state? And that... uh... somehow... the Song, and Ming states... did imperialism? And that Mao did an imperialism because.... the Yuan dynasty...
I'm sorry I'm trying real hard but I can't pull any kind of sense out of that.
Is this what NATOnauts are telling themselves about how the world works to justify provocations against China? I can't tell what is the work of one crank or the work of large numbers of cranks anymore.
Ah, we've been bamboozled. We're looking at it backwards.
You see, China bad. Mao bad man. These are the facts, the Truth. Now we just need to work backwards to find out ways China is bad and Mao is bad. I heard Mao smoked cigarettes, which is very uncouth behaviour. And he smoked them in China. Clearly he was hoping the secondhand smoke would kill millions! What an evil guy!
Damn aggressive Chinese and their expansionist strategy of...
checks notes
... getting conquered by the Mongols.
The impressive part is that that take is still better than
killing native populations and taking their land on purpose"displacing native populations" is morally better than not understanding the ecosystem and accidentally causing famine by killing "pests"
That is just open white nationalism and genocide denial
It is interesting tho watching how desperately fascists try to appropriate our terminology despite how they wield it so incoherently
Shows the inherent weakness of their positions and politics, they have nothing except what they can take from us
its really funny how libs alternate between "im just a smol bean, tankies are such meanies" and Reinhard Heydrich depending on what they are talking about
'whataboutism' LMAO i literally havent heard an original critique from liberals for at least two years at this point
Whataboutism is such a cursed term, literally invented by some Irish journalist (originally called it "whataboutery") who supported the British during the Troubles, and had to make up a term to keep himself from constantly getting owned by everybody around him when he'd bitch about what the IRA was doing, and they'd point out what the Brits were doing that caused the escalation, or that made his demonizations seem trivial in comparison.
As a person of NATO, Andrew Jackson is allowed to order the ethnic cleansing of Indigenous peoples. People of NATO being able to steal land from Indigenous peoples is allowed because people of NATO are justifiably hierarchically over Indigenous peoples. I'm definitely an anarchist.
However at the same time, stopping a genocide in a neighboring country is evil and worse than hitler.
You know they're right, we should hold the definitely still existing Golden Horde accountable for the actions of Chingis Khan. I'll drive down to Ulaanbaatar and throw red paint on the giant statue right away (I would never do this the Mongolians are cool people and that statue owns.)
I don't like the idea of veneration that guy, but the statue is sick
I specifically requested a couple hours of dunking after I pinged them here, they'll be gone soon
to our anarchist comrades in the posting mines
