GarbageShootAlt2 @ GarbageShootAlt2 @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

475

Joined

2 yr. ago

Whether the podcast is relevant or not has nothing to do with what I said. Whether it is credible or not has nothing to do with what I said. Whether you are justified in feeling offended over it? Nothing to do with what I said.

For my own mental health I'm going to just not take the bait which is that parenthetical. Instead, I would like to focus on how "I refuse to listen to even two minutes of this podcast because I don't like its pedigree" is not actually a go-ahead to blindly presume things about it like the conspiracy theory I initially pointed out. You can refuse to listen to it, that's fine, but that puts you in a position of lacking a lot of information for making assertions about it. What that means is that what you can do is ignore it, or say you don't want to engage with it for such and such a reason that you actually have good reason to believe and then leave it there. That's how epistemology works.

It's true, Russia lost its entire citizenry other than Putin to the war, now he's just operating by means of North Korean hand servants. They lost about 200% of their population because, after the Russian conscript dies, the Ghost of Kiev hunted down their ghost and killed that too.

… you’re posting a podcast titled “CitationS Needed” that’s clearly trying to pass its self off as famous YouTuber Tom Scott’s “Citation Needed” (no plural

This amounts to a conspiracy theory. It's a completely different kind of format and the hosts introduce themselves up front. If it's a knock-off, it's not a very effortful one. You'd probably have an easier time saying they stole the name, because it's a very good name.

That is simply incorrect English, words have more referents than gender. Traditionally "it" is reserved for non-human things of all types, but definitely does not ever apply to a human, and calling someone an "it" without it first being requested by them is near-universally recognized as a dehumanizing insult.

No, gay marriage is what the US culture war pivoted on for a long time because it doesn't involve disruption to normal cishet social currents and doesn't require anything of the state actually be provided to people, plus it represents a benefit to the gay members of the bourgeoisie just as much as to the common person.

Furthermore, like in Taiwan, gay marriage in the US was not approved by referendum, it was basically a fluke from the Supreme court independent of other efforts. There are still nearly as many states as before where it is a large popular sentiment that if your kid is gay, they are sick, and state legislatures that are, as we speak, preparing to bring gay marriage back to the SC to get its protection removed.

Edit: As an aside, despite your chauvinistic, idealist view of cultures being "there yet" or not, using China as the example, lateral cultural differences also exist, and ignorance of these makes it very difficult to actively evaluate what a cultural attitude is. In China's case, there is in most places a passive homophobia (which is still homophobia), but they generally don't have the same homophobic culture war front that we saw in America. They are more like a broad, cultural "don't ask, don't tell", which is in keeping with even Imperial Chinese traditions. There is obviously resistance to the existing movements to do things like legalizing gay marriage, but it's a losing battle for the conservatives, who are mostly passive on this issue, and several of the practical benefits of gay marriage have already been won by other concessions, allowing gay couples rights concerning medical and financial decisions and so on through their guardianship system.

All this to say "Is gay marriage legal?" should not be treated as a binary for queer people having any recognition.

P.P.S. China also has multiple dedicated clinics for transgender people in various cities like Beijing and Shanghai.

Most folks on the planet are Indian, Chinese, or in an Islamic country of some sort. Now do tell, dear blakeus12. How do all of those cultures treat LGBTQ+ people :|

China has cities bigger than New York that are pretty trans-positive. These entities aren't monolithic in their values, and in fact I would say they are more diverse in their values for better and for worse, compared to the US. What you are referring to is a cartoon perspective on these ~dozen countries spoon fed to you by western chauvinists.

This isn't just simple assault, it's also battery on the level of severity of causing permanent disability. The sentence goes up to 10 years for more severe assault and battery: https://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2023/01/sentence-korean-crime-korea.html . Based on what they say there, this guy probably received closer to the minimum sentence.

I kind of understand your way of reasoning in this affair, you seem to apply the principle of the lesser of two evils and i don’t deny that NATO is by far worse than their enemies, but then wouldn’t liberals also be in the right when they support the “lesser of two evils”?.

Without touching the rest of it, the idea is not to support the lesser evil, but to support what is historically progressive despite its negative elements. If two things are both a net bad but there is a lesser evil, it is generally a better answer to support neither.

All of the "CRINK" countries have negative elements -- particularly Russian chauvinism and Iranian theocracy -- but the Axis of Resistance's overall operations tend towards multilateral internationalism rather than domination by a single superpower like NATO favors.

P.S. as davel said, your English is great

The whole article is almost certainly demeaning, as you would expect of a celebrity gossip rag.

Taking the quote completely at face value:

So it's now censorship of freedom of expression if the state is not actively sponsoring, advertising, and distributing criticism of itself? I should try writing to NPR about how we need a proletarian party controlling the government so I can say that they've "censored" me when they obviously don't invite me on to talk about it.

but the police allowed the protests to rage for weeks and did not violently repress them.

The HK cops absolutely were violent, it was just unfathomably better controlled than American cops, because they didn't kill a single person despite the huge scale of the protests and reasonably long time period. Literally the only living being who I have heard about their actions killing was a cat that got caught in teargas (whose owner brought it to the protests like a moron). Meanwhile the HK protestors, in a deliberate and targeted manner, immolated a civilian for aiding the police (I think he opened a gate for them or something), along with abuses that were less serious, like beating up the odd pro-mainland HK civilian or less-targeted, like when they negligently bricked that old man and he died.

Edit: I hope that's not just an incomprehensible pile of anecdotes.

Why the fuck would I argue with someone who minimizes genocide like that? It's not like your rotten opinion means anything, and anyone else sees the shit you tried to pull comment 1.

a normal apple that happens to have bad bump on it.

It must be bait that you describe supporting an ongoing genocide as "a bad bump on a normal apple". Come on, I never doubted that that's what you really think of the people in the third world, but saying it out loud like that? If you want to be a good Harris propagandist, you're going to need to do a better job of pretending you care about humans and it's just such a shame that you can't vote against genocide. That's the way that you scoundrels vote shame properly, with crocodile tears and disavowal.

Contrary to certain self-victimizing sentiments, I think that the problem is that the platform is more and more overtaken by the topic of the election (and Israel in reference thereto) and it just results in interminable arguing in circles that accomplishes nothing but wasting time. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I think less-annoying activity will increase afterwards.

God damn, it really is "But Trump!" every time you criticize Harris

I'd hesitate to be too smol bean Japan about it considering they were brutalizing East Asia systematically at the time.

This is wrong on almost every level. It wasn't a genocide (some people call it that, but the mainstream liberal historical consensus is that it was collectivization being botched along with some bad crop conditions), it has very little to do with anything happening in the war, and the Russian Federation was brought into existence in order to overthrow the communists. The logical end point of Putin's weird revanchist rhetoric is closer to wanting to undo the separation of nations in the former Russian Empire that began under Lenin and bring things back to the Tsarist model that preceded it. That's what he means when he says that he wants to show Ukraine what "decommunization" entails, since the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, while it was still under a central authority, had greater autonomy than the region had under the Tsar and he is making the threat that he will take that away.

God, I hate how bad education is that this even needs to be explained. Imperial Russia had been suffering from famines on a cyclical basis for centuries and, contrary to what some people say, neither Lenin nor Stalin were magicians who could just bend reality in the USSR, though many -- including some "Stalinist" Marxists -- argue that Stalin basically tried to for left-deviationist reasons when material conditions didn't actually support collectivising the way he wanted the state to, and that (along with drought and blight) caused the famine. Important to understanding this, however, is that the only time there would ever be a famine in the USSR after that was in the aftermath of the Nazi invasion as a direct result thereof. The next "famine" in Russia would be around 50 years later with the establishment of the Russian Federation, where the gutting of just about every public program and industry caused a huge excess death event over a period of a couple years.

The idea of it being a genocide -- aside from being a lie popularized by Goebbels that has no support in the Soviet archives -- is even more ridiculous for the fact that the famine ended and nothing ever happened to the Ukrainians on fractionally that scale except for the Nazis! But of course the Ukrainian Nazis love saying the Russians wanted all Ukrainians dead, because it gave them cover for perpetrating the Holocaust (see "double genocide theory").

To add one last point on "this doesn't work as a genocide," a plurality of the victims were Ukrainian nationals, but it was spread out over multiple nations and the part of Ukraine the famine impacted was overwhelmingly in the east. You know, the part that's Russian in huge disproportion. Of course, one of the other countries impacted, with I think 1.5 million dead or something like that, was Russia! It would be like trying to wipe out a population by detonating an atom bomb where a quarter of the blast is on your side of the border, then just not doing anything when most of the population you targeted survived! It only makes sense if you're assuming the Russians were such miserable morons that the dumbest Banderite bandit is incomparably more refined.

Think the little red book was a bad strategy for its time because it's essentially a collection of quotations, so it wasn't good for systematic understanding of Mao's thought. In the modern day the internet at least makes it somewhat better because the LRB has citations, so you can just look them up and see the context for the statement.

I'm kind of curious how the LRB came about, since it feels pretty condescending, but Mao was perhaps the most optimistic political leader I've ever heard of in terms of just giving the people a small bit of advice or a revised law and letting them handle the rest (this sometimes went extremely poorly, of course).

Aside, again, from the fact that Gaza is being undercounted severely due to strict criteria for marking a civilian death combined with most of the hospitals in Gaza being blown up, yes! the rate of killing matters a great deal to understanding what is going on unless you are taking the hysterical view that Putin is going to kill every Ukrainian and is just dragging his feet a little.

Didn’t formulate it any way, that’s you assuming.

That's me reading English. What I was referring to is a set phrase, but it's not a fossilization, it's still just what the words mean if you're actively putting them together. God, this is such an annoying, pointless argument.