Thank you for failing to provide anything of value, and thus fulfilling my expectations. I hope you recall this encounter the next time you feel self-assured about your ideology and ask yourself why you failed to answer a simple question.
It's not that persons fault at all, but I think you're making a mistake here in making a systemic question into an individual. We can recognize that no person is inherently "evil" (though I hate to use that word, I'm just lacking for words), but also recognize that the person is a member of an ideological group that is, and as long as the person is a member of said group, they're opposed due to the fact that they are working towards genociding minorities.
"Well what if it was actually something different huh? Didn't think about that, did ya?"
)
Being a nazi, as opposed to black or jewish, is an ideological choice and not a question of race. That choice is a choice were you decide to pursue violent means in order to exterminate those of other races. Do you think a person pursuing genocide should be stopped? If you do, what do you propose should happen when they oppose being stopped?
Your point was that there were no camps, and I've now illustrated how there is. If you need another examples you can also look towards the Moria Refugee camp. It is odd to me how you keep retreating to "it's not about the US". What is it about then?
Ah damn I didn't know we were doing vibes-based facts, my bad. I feel as though the united states has the largest prisoner population in the world, wherein slave labor is legal and people are forced to work for pittances. The population of the US prisons is outsizedly black, latino and other minority groups. These work-camps have a high rate of death, as well as abuse.
The united states has the largest prisoner population in the world, wherein slave labor is legal and people are forced to work for pittances. The population of the US prisons is outsizedly black, latino and other minority groups. These work-camps have a high rate of death, as well as abuse.
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn't inherently "more democratic". A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it's not a rule.
Because that's how democracy works
I'm pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I'm just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter(tm) counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you're admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election
Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it's always nice to retread old ground. I'm gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Dawg you're quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it's also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you're going to say "Oh they lie, oh they repress!" Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn't the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn't the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn't the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn't the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
If you would reread the thread you'd notice it begins with the hexbear user making a simple request, which the user could not fulfill. Any further questions in the discussion were met with derision, which is when the bad-faith behaviour was reciprocrated by the hexbear user. Please do better and hold yourself to at least half the standard you expect of others
He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
So if the Ukrainians were shown to be persecuting jews, roma, russian-ukrainians or commies you'd be against Ukraine?
Well have I got some news for you
If someone invades your house, you wouldn't just given them a room and bath to have them clam down.
I sure am glad that libs are aware that international relations are complex issues that cannot be boiled down to household analogies. It sure would be frustrating if they tried to make this into some simple black/white scenario with good guys and bad guys separated from material reality and historical context
You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
Why should they? You do not engage with any of the responses of substance. When you choose not to engage in good-faith discussion, why you believe you deserve anything other than ridicule?
![Egon [they/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/1dee944e-1e8e-4465-89e8-a22e23187ddd.png?format=webp&thumbnail=128)