alcoholicorn @ alcoholicorn @lemmy.ml

Posts

15

Comments

1,792

Joined

1 yr. ago

Canada could do the funniest thing rn by buying J-35s at half the price.

When has the CIA ever financed a communist coup?

lmao. Musk is defunding imperialism, not out of any moral compulsion, but because he's just that dumb.

I will be genuinely surprised if this actually goes through.

The Young Turk movement started with medical students.

There were quite a few pro-segregation protests when schools were desegregated.

There's also a lot of cases where students with real grievances and positive intentions are coopted; most of the students protesting in the early 90s in eastern europe didn't intend to do a color revolution and have their countries stripped for parts.

The guy you're responding to is a liberal doing a piss-poor satire of a ML.

The students protests was quickly co-opted by nazi collaborators entirely unaffiliated with the students, it'd be like if Jan 6 happened during the 2020 protests.

The government vindicating those protestors also built monuments to nazi collaborators.

It's a complex issue, the students had genuine issues the government was failing to address, but if the soviets didn't step in, things would have been far, far worse. For comparison, here's what tended to happen in countries that failed to stop the counterrevolution around that time.

Good catch, I have edited it accordingly. Real "giving the nobel peace prize to Henry Kissinger and the guys he is currently dropping chemical weapons on" vibes.

Also: Holy shit, Chiang Kai-Shek is there for 1937.

They were selling weapons to both sides. GM controlled Opel until the 1940s, they built a lot of the nazi war machine (using forced labor), the Ford-Werke factory in Germany produced V2 rocket turbines among other parts, and US strategic bombers were specifically told to avoid bombing it because it was owned by an american, Exxon and Dow licensed patents for synthetic rubber and other war materials Germany lacked, Chase provided loans necessary for the rearmament, IBM sold the nazis the computers they used to carry out the holocaust.

The capitalist class looked at fascism as the savior of capitalism; they'd been terrified of a revolution in Germany and Hitler had just shown them an alternative. There's a reason he was Time's man of the year in 1938.

When they fled to XHS:

No, it's fine, i just... i didnt think it would be chinese.

Louis DeJoy (born 1956 or 1957[citation needed]) is an American businessman serving as the 75th U.S. postmaster general. He was appointed in May 2020 by the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service (USPS). Prior to the appointment, he was the founder and CEO of the logistics and freight company New Breed Logistics and was a major Republican Party donor and fundraiser for Donald Trump.[1] DeJoy is the first postmaster general since 1992 without any previous experience in the USPS and the first postmaster general in U.S. history to come directly from the board of a privately owned competitor to the public–private partnership of the USPS entity.[2] His companies still hold active service contracts with the USPS, generating controversy over conflict of interest.[3]

Then your school did a better job of educating you than anyone talking about thousands of protesters getting ground into paste. Mine told me that tens of thousands of protesters were all blocked into the square, then tanks machinegunned them all down and ran them over, and the only picture to make it out of the event was Tank Man blocking the tanks from entering the square.

The point isn't to make you sympathetic to the PLA, if you have a more nuanced understanding than "china killed 1000s of protestors because they fear and hate freedom", you're already ahead of 9/10 lemmitors, including the one I was responding to.

You can't have a constructive discussion with someone whose analysis begins and ends with "china bad", because they are incapable of actually engaging with the material beyond twisting any data into hostile evidence, and making up some if none is available.

The senate doesn't actually need a supermajority to end a filibuster; they approve the rules that set how many votes are needed to break a filibuster with a simple majority.

Similarly they can replace the parliamentarian at will, as republicans have done in the past, but chose to keep a parliamentarian that prevented them from using budget reconciliation to fulfill their promises to the voters.

The comic is mocking the democrats for spending the last 4 years pretending they were completely powerless, just like they did in the 4 years leading to Trump pt I. The US president is one of the most powerful executives.

The western narrative about Tiananmen Square is basically orthogonal to the truth?

Like it's not just filled with fabricated events like tanks pureeing students, it completely misses the context and response to tell a weird "china bad and does evil stuff cuz they hate freedom" story.

The other weird part is that the big setpieces of the western narrative, like tank man getting run over by tanks headed to the square are so trivial to debunk, just look at the uncropped video, yet I have yet to see 1 lemmiter actually look at the evidence and develop a more nuanced understanding. I've even had them show me compilations of photos from the events and never stop to think "Huh, these pictures of gorily lynched cops, protesters shot in streets outside the square, and burned vehicles aren't consistent with what I've been told, maybe I've been mislead?"

No oppressed person ever got their rights by appealing to the morality of their oppressor.

Both these movements would have failed if there wasn't a violent component demonstrating the alternative if they didn't choose the more peaceful route.

If you want more context on how the two method supported each other in the civil rights movement, here's a good book.

It's important to note that King didn't unilaterally condemn violence, he acknowledged that they were a response to a greater, ongoing injustice, and that the white moderates who pretended to agree with their aims, but opposed them because of their methods were as much if not a greater barrier to civil rights than the klanman.

Facilitating genocide and calling all the politically-activated college students who would have been making up the dem's ground game if not at least phonebanking, antisemites for whom free speech doesn't apply were just a few of dozens of decisions the dems chose, knowing they would decrease turnout.

The dems lost because they thought they didn't have to listen to their constituents to win.

You're not going to find a good person who puts following rules written to benefit the capitalist class above freeing people from crippling debt.

They were only able to because of the way he went about it. He could have simply ordered the Department of Education to immediately forgive the loans and erase any record of the debt, and dared the SCOTUS to order him to create new debts (which he could simply ignore).

Nobody was screeching "don't vote for Kamala", we were telling Kamala what she needed to do to win. Instead she listened to the same campaign that killed Biden's shot and we all lost because of it.

Nothing I could have done would have made genocide popular. Nothing I could have done would have made Kamala pledging to build the wall and get tough on crime look like anything but an admission that Trump was right the whole time.

That "tactical decision" enabled the democrats to sleepwalk into oblivion.

The only way the democrats could have won the last election is if they stopped trying to be "reasonable republicans" and instead used every tool available to accomplish what their constituents want. Like what the republicans are doing, but for good things like women's healthcare and not drowning migrant children in the Rio.

Liberals who like the status quo adhere themselves to unwritten rules and current precedences

You're getting lost in the sauce. These unwritten rules and precedence (and the written rules) aren't an end in and of themselves, they're tools you can use to accomplish specific tasks. When a SCOTUS judge decides to use a specific interpretation of the constitution, it's not because the constitution is a sacred text and god came down to him and showed him the correct way to interpret it, it's because he understands the effects of promoting that particular interpretation in the way power will be wielded.

When democrats decide to let the rules or the parliamentarian or w/e stop them from doing what their constituents want, it's not because they just hate the idea of someone breaking a rule, it's because it gives them an excuse not to do something their donors don't want.