cecinestpasunbot @ cecinestpasunbot @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

442

Joined

2 yr. ago

You said,

It wasn’t an armed conflict until they began it on October 7th.

I disagreed with that assessment. What’s so hard for you to understand?

Of course there was armed conflict or do you think the apartheid and blockade of Gaza was enforced with bubblegum and rainbows?

What do expect Palestinians to do? Do you want them to waste away drinking contaminated water because Israel attacked their sole desalination plant? That isn’t peace either.

I generally agree but with a few caveats.

First, this is a uniquely bad headline. More reputable outlets would report it as something like “Russia denies using North Korean troops in war effort, Ukrainian Intelligence claims otherwise”. That at least allows the reader to understand who is making what claim and whether or not that claim is contested.

Second, most people are not anywhere as skeptical of media outlets as they should be. They may expect bias but rarely do people in western countries expect journalists to regurgitate and launder whatever wild claims state officials make. Unfortunately thats exactly what many new agencies do which is why I think it’s important to talk about when discussing articles like this one.

They aren't being obtuse. They’re just an idealist. They likely believe the decisions people make and the things they choose to believe in are detached from the circumstances in which people find themselves. In their mind, morality is self evident and anyone committing an immoral act, as they define it, could simply choose not to.

As far as I can tell these claims are largely coming from Ukrainian sources. I have not seen independent validation from anywhere else. At best we can say is that Ukrainian intelligence claims North Koreans troops are being deployed as part of Russia’s invasion.

Unfortunately, the headline of this article acts as if this is a known fact. A better headline would be include the source of the accusation being made. That’s a problem because most in this thread and the other similar threads are treating the claims made as fact and any reasonable skepticism is downvoted and dismissed.

Good luck convincing anyone here to be skeptical of sources that reinforce their preconceptions of the world. Media literacy is sorely lacking is this thread.

Yes it's "propaganda" to be critical of the media you consume. 🙄

I’m not sure I trust any of these claims. The sources are all Ukrainian which means they are highly likely to be war propaganda at worst and heavily biased at best. No matter what anyone’s preconceptions about North Korea or Russia may be, independent verification is needed to know if any this is true.

Israel is being the very opposite of a force for stability in the region, which isn’t going to help the Petro-Dollar.

Israel being a destabilizing force gives the US leverage over the oil rich nations of the region. That’s why Israel is important for the petrodollar. I’m also not sure the US currently has a way to maintain its global economic dominance without the petrodollar. That’s in part why I think you see the US doubling down on support for Israel even in a context where doing so is increasingly risky.

She would likely gain voters because she would be distinguishing herself from Biden who remains deeply unpopular.

I think the key is to tackle the incentives that brought narcos into existence in the first place. Unfortunately, a lot of that is outside of Mexico’s control. As long as there is demand in the US and drugs remain criminalized, impoverished people in Mexico will be attracted to the drug trade. Also lax US gun laws make it easy for weapons to flow to the narcos making them a tougher target.

And the ratio is far more in the former’s favour, which is useless. Same for women being pro- and against the government’s actions, with there being more focus on the complaints.

This is an article not a poll. The author of the article can choose to focus on women who are unhappy with the government programs even if they’re in the minority. The author can also highlight aspects of the Chinese system that are more invasive than others. Assuming everything in the article is factually correct, you still cannot make assumptions about how Chinese women feel more generally.

You also cannot proclaim that the government did not pursue means of promoting having children that did not infringe on women’s privacy, as the comment I was replying to did.

I actually applaud them, since the supporters might just be doing it out of fear.

This is just speculation and it contradicts other assumptions you’ve made based on this article. You seem to think the women quoted in the article are representative of China as a whole except of course when it comes to their willingness to criticize their government. This kind of logic is unreasonable and will easily lead you to believe all sorts of nonsense. It’s not all that different from how republicans get swept up into thinking Haitian immigrants were eating people’s pets.

Is anything I said wrong or are you just not very self aware?

Why are you assuming they aren’t trying to make having children more appealing by expanding access to family planning services, healthcare, and childcare? The article literally says they’re also doing those things.

Yeah I mean the actually article also states

Some women told The Times they appreciated the outreach because they felt cared for. Women have also lauded other parts of the pro-fertility campaign, which include expanding child-care resources and encouraging men to help out at home.

All in all it sounds like there are efforts to make having children seem more attractive to young couples and some local officials are being overzealous about it. This is also happening in a context where abortion is legal, easy to access, and highly prevalent.

Okay but the original comment I was replying to in this thread was pretending as if China’s actions had nothing to do with the US. My point here is to illustrate how that was incorrect. The belief that the PRC is responding to perceived threats from the US when setting policies concerning Taiwan is perfectly reconcilable with the belief that the PRC is a threat to Taiwanese democracy.

Okay but China doesn’t pretend to be a liberal democracy. On paper it’s pretty clear the communist party maintains hegemonic control over their political system. Xi is an important leader within the party but he’s hardly the sole decision maker. The comment I was responding to claimed that he was which betrays their ignorance. It’s one thing to criticize Chinas political system and it’s another thing entirely to make up nonsense about how it functions.

You’re advocating for belligerence on behalf of a people who generally do not agree with that approach. Taiwanese people would much rather their leaders attempt to resolve tensions with the mainland through diplomatic means. Escalating the conflict to the point of war or pushing for regime change in the PRC is just delusional.

I think you frankly have no idea how China’s political system works.