It doesn't matter to me if you want to wipe out all the Palestinians, Jews, Ukrainians, Russians, Uighur, or Rohingya
This reads like "I won't accept racism towards black people or towards white people, because they're totally the same". You're taking completely incomparable historical events and putting them all together under the broad category of "genocide" to further your narrative. There IS an ongoing genocide of Palestinians, there ISN'T an ongoing genocide of Russians, Ukrainians or Uyghur. Denying false claims of genocide doesn't amount to advocating genocide. I'm against the genocide of Russians, Ukrainians and Uyghurs, but those things aren't happening so why even talk about that?
giving up on "American interests" in the way they are will mean the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people
The US is currently complicit on the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza (counting before Oct 7th, and counting deaths to malnutrition and illness too). Anyway, thousands of innocents die in the US from police violence anyway, you just don't care because they're mostly not white.
Maybe the problem is the existence of big companies then. IP didn't exist as an idea until the 19th century, and humanity made plenty of progress between that and hunting-gathering.
I beg to differ. I've been self-repressed for many years from speaking about my problems with my close ones because of toxic aspects of the social understanding of masculinity that I absorbed.
Embargos, particularly those aimed at economically vulnerable nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea, serve no useful purpose
That depends on your point of view. The point of view of US lawmakers is that, by forcing people into "hunger and desperation" (quoting them) through imposed economic violence, they'll bring about a change of regime. Of course, that's absolutely disgusting, but it does serve a purpose, which in many instances worked (deposition of Mosaddeq in Iran, sanctions to Chile's Allende...). I just disagree with the methodology and the purpose because I'm not Satan, unlike US policymakers.
Bernie is kinda as bad as your run off the mill democrat candidate. He's just more palatable to capture young and progressive vote, but he refused to call the genocide by what it is, and has been a defender of Zionism in the past.
The woman who had to endure constant misogyny during her scientific career. You're placing the responsibility on her instead of the people oppressing her
in an equal world, grants aimed specifically at either sex should not be necessary
Not quite, I'm afraid. Her point was essentially "I had very good grades, so I would have been hired anyway, but instead of hiring me normally, they hired me through this grant for women, which is a form of discrimination". She's not explicitly saying "kick the ladder when I'm up top", but it's essentially the conclusion. She mentions it on the "what's wrong with academia" thingy video.
Love the part on the video where essentially she says "I was given my first research position thanks to a grant for women. Also, there should be no research grants for women". Piece of shit.
What are you even on about? Russia confirmed they took the kids
What amount of kids are you talking about? I specifically mentioned that this happened occasionally with few children left behind in the frontlines. I also discussed the 16k number thrown around by the Ukrainian government not being backed by any evidence or independent research, and most likely being a propaganda stunt.
I don't have an interest in Russia winning, I'm sad for Ukrainian people and for the existence of the war, I'm just asking you to remember the people on the left of the political spectrum that have been asking for negotiations for the past 3 years, and who've been labeled as "pro-russian" for asking for negotiations as early as possible. The war will end with negotiations, the negotiations will most likely end up being unfortunate for Ukrainian interests and beneficial to the Russian government, and the 3 years of meat grinder could have been avoided if negotiations had happened from the start.
Just the kidnapping of Ukrainian children alone makes it genocidal
Ah yes, the "kidnapping of 16.000 Ukrainian children" that the United Nations report couldn't verify and whose only source is the Ukrainian government, which is famously at war with the country it's accusing. There were some instances of kids in the frontline towns being found by the Russian military and in some cases being sent to Russia, but it's not a generalised thing mainly because, well, there are usually no fucking children in a frontline.
And the immediate ceasefire offer was not on any conditions of territorial exchange, just that they would stop shooting while negotiating. Russia categorically denied any stop to the war this year
Now that Russia is regaining Kursk at a fast pace, how would you expect Russia to want a ceasefire? "Hold up, we're losing fast, let's just stop the shooting altogether?"
Also, why would you say they are losing?
Because the Russian troops have been consistently advancing for the past two years, and in the past week most of Kursk including the city of Sudzha has been retaken by Russia. Just don't be surprised when the war ends by means of negotiation and the terms are bad to Ukraine.
It's an unfair war inflicted on the Ukrainian population, but calling it genocidal is crazy. Look at the civilian casualty rate in Ukraine, and compare it with another non-genocidal war like that of the invasion of Iraq.
They just signaled that they are open to an immediate ceasefire, but the Russians denied the offer.
They're open to an immediate ceasefire on their own conditions, which isn't something you can expect when you're, you know, losing a war.
You brought up the american interests, not me. the american interests ARE murder. The world order would be better off without them