The whole human shield angle is really stupid if you ever pay attention to how much the Zionists care about civilian casualties. We're at what, 1.5 War-in-Ukraines of dead Palestinian civilians in 3 months? It seems like civilians don't function as a deterrent to the IOF.
No no you don't understand! The proper way to attempt to address an ongoing genocide is to wring your hands and give more weapons to the people doing it. Doing anything proactive is bad form you silly geese.
Okay sweet so you're aware of the role they're playing in the current government then. Not sure why you found that idea objectionable a minute ago but whatever.
And yes I'm aware, not a big Putler fan here. It's too bad the left is so weak in the former Soviet nations.
Personally I just hope a peace can be negotiated soon to save lives.
It may be helpful for you to consider this piece covering the long running problem with the far right that Ukraine has been dealing with. A cursory search would show you that this is a problem reputable news agencies have been documenting for years before the current war.
I like to think about the historical perspective. It's not much consolation but systems like these can't maintain themselves forever, cracks are showing and the US really is more vulnerable than people would like to admit.
Once things start changing there will likely be a lot of problems, things will probably get worse in some ways, but I think even if I don't survive to see what people come up with in the aftermath of the US I can get satisfaction from seeing it burn.
When you read history you learn humans are very resilient, humans will not end when the empire does. Maybe the failure of this place will be good for the world.
"I cannot conceive of the idea that people can dislike my preferred political choice for any valid reason. Not picking my preferred choice would mean a thing I don't prefer would happen. Nobody could possibly want that."
I love that this is how libs are going to deal with their deeply unpopular genocidaire, just pretend he's actually popular and fine. Real winning strategy there, I hope democracy isn't on the line.
Ah, but have you tankies considered how cheap it is to send mentally disabled Eastern Europeans to die and how much value The West™ is getting out of this?
This is clearly a sign of good things just around the corner.
The technical term is 'disrupting the democratic space.' It's an innovative approach to democracy that builds on the Bidenist model, where you're morally required to rubber stamp one bad option or It's not democracy anymore.
The cool new twist is that the rubber stamping has been automated to save everyone time and keep anything unexpected from happening.
I think there was a culture shock when federation first hit. We had a ton of 'engagement' from people who were using ableist, racist, and transphobic slurs, which brought out strong reactions from our community because we believe its important to shut that stuff down on solidarity with our comrades. And as things got heated I think our willingness to believe people wanted good faith debate eroded.
We do love a good dunking though, and I think overall the community has a lower threshold for going full pig poop balls on people than I would prefer.
I don't even understand what the stakes are from his perspective, he's already banned like a dozen political parties and nobody cares, what do you have to fear holding an election when you're allowed to ban people who oppose you? It's a free rubber stamp basically, you get democracy points and to renew your mandate by being the only legal option, it's a win win.
As someone who lives in a country that's been in more or less continuous conflict since I was born I would be pretty upset if the leadership here decided elections couldn't happen during wartime.
Then why do it? You're the only one in this whole thread with any issue, unless you can point to someone else who has had it. The most desperate form of deflection was using upvotes/downvotes as a point like populists always do.
But they aren't the only person here with an issue. My comment wasn't as confrontational but I also clearly raised a red flag at the question being asked and the reasons people start asking these kinds of questions. I also see what you're doing. I just don't want to spend the next week doing this thing you're calling a debate.
Right, people miss this but its literally one of the basic ideas of capitalist production. Mom and Pop might be nice people but the market WILL destroy them if they don't participate in the most cutthroat practices to stay competitive. Forces are at play that supercede the morality of any actor.
Because the two things aren't actually the same and because of what it means in context to oppose a culture vs. a cult. You might oppose scientology in a variety of ways, they have a leader, buildings, staff, bank accounts, a documented history of infiltrating the government and harassing people, a curated list of members etc.
A cult may or may not have all of those but they're a different kind of thing than a culture. Cultures are social categories that encompass a much wider range of human behaviors for one, they include things like sport and art and language. Festivals and practices and food and manners. They're things a human can't really help having even if you can choose to adopt parts and change others. Religion, which is a thing you seem to be conflating with culture, is just a part of culture. Egyptian Copts have Christianity like many Americans. They are also very different culturally.
But the bigger reason people should be very careful when people start criticizing culture is because we know what that means. What does one do about "cultural Bolshevism?"
What do conservatives actually want done about "Black culture?" What did bringing "culture" to the "savages" mean? How does someone stop being from a culture?
We know how those questions get answered. And that tells us something about why those questions might be asked in the first place.
It really shouldn't be complicated. If you live somewhere you need to be able to politically represent and defend yourself in some recognized way. The alternative is to grant that there is a discernable class of scapegoats that can be blamed and punished by everyone else without any recourse.
For the second one I think you might be overstating that this is the case regardless of demographics. Look up the demographics in a lot of American towns. There are plenty of poor midwestern working towns that have like 1 black person in them, for a lot of American built environments conscious separation by race was a guiding principle of planning and zoning. I think it's actually very easy and normal to develop solidarity across ethnic lines if you actually share a neighborhood and workplace with many kinds of people but American cities and towns were often built specifically to foreclose that possibility.
I think American history also gives a good illustration of the reality that racism and bigotry are not class delineated: the ruling classes here were historically the most invested in creating and propagating beliefs that made them superior to everyone else, many of the most vocal and 'thoughtful' racists in American history were bourgeois.
To say nothing of the fact that it's very easy for a rich white community in California to vocally be anti-racist while offering no resistance to the racist policies being pursued there. We might be giving the wealthy and educated libs more credit than they deserve by taking them at their word.
I think that's a slight exaggeration, although I get what you're saying. But I think it's important to demonstrate to libs that I'm being consistent so I'll explain what I mean.
I don't think the communal decision making bodies that spun up in the wake of the Japanese evacuation were necessarily completely aligned with Kim or the communists in exile, it was virtually impossible to maintain a functioning domestic apparatus and what I've read makes it seem like these were mostly improvisational.
That said, I think in the long run you're right, I see it as similar to Vietnam later: because US foreign policy was aligned with elements that were naturally unpopular to the population of the country (in Korea's case, the Japanese and domestic collaborators) a democratic resolution of the question of what sort of government a united Korea would chose for itself was not going to be an acceptable outcome to the US.
But we don't know what they would organically choose for themselves because that decision was foreclosed by US occupation. I suspect a popular referendum was the best possible outcome but I think it would probably look very different from the current DPRK, for understandable reasons.
![Doubledee [comrade/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/56456c0b-a98b-4a44-9a8e-ac79273e8730.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Doubledee [comrade/them] @ Doubledee @hexbear.net Posts 0Comments 111Joined 3 yr. ago
The whole human shield angle is really stupid if you ever pay attention to how much the Zionists care about civilian casualties. We're at what, 1.5 War-in-Ukraines of dead Palestinian civilians in 3 months? It seems like civilians don't function as a deterrent to the IOF.