For a decade, Russia has submitted a text denouncing the 'glorification of Nazism'
In the context of the war in Ukraine – and with Russia justifying its invasion, which began on 24 February, by the desire to "denazify" the country – many states that had previously abstained decided to vote against the resolution
In its explanation of the vote, the European Union recalled that it had been advocating "for years that the fight against extremism and the condemnation of the despicable ideology of Nazism must not be misused and co-opted for politically motivated purposes that seek to excuse new violations and abuses of human rights."
According to the press release published on the UN website, Ukraine called this text hypocritical believing that, contrary to its title, it was a pretext used by Russia to justify its brutal war against its country and the despicable crimes committed against humanity.
The countries opposing the resolution emphasize at every turn that they do not in any way condone the Third Reich. "We reaffirm our strongest condemnation of all forms of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," Ukraine insisted in 2019, while recalling that 8 million Ukrainians died in the Nazi offensive.
Before the vote, Australia managed to get an amendment to the draft resolution adopted (63 votes in favor, 23 against and 65 abstentions) inserting a new paragraph in which the General Assembly "notes with alarm that the Russian Federation has sought to justify its territorial aggression against Ukraine on the purported basis of eliminating neo-Nazism, and underlines that the pretextual use of neo-Nazism to justify territorial aggression seriously undermines genuine attempts to combat neo-Nazism."
Because English is an arse of a language and I am a dumb dumb 🙃
A dumb dumb capable of providing credible sources though, which is funny considering the downvotes and the context of this thread. Maybe y'all aren't as different from Gabbard as you think...
The BBC doesn't outright say red is blue, because they're not idiots and their target audience aren't idiots, but to state they're not comparable flies in the face of reason. They have shown on multiple occasions to push agendas, to the point that the criticism page on Wikipedia is huge. They are not the bastion of good journalism that they're held up to be by the general public.
The Guardian has it's flaws too of course but that is a far far better source than the BBC. It doesn't claim to be unbias, it doesn't lie to you that you'll hear fair and even coverage from "both sides", it doesn't give preferential treatment to the ruling party in government because of fears its funding will be removed.
Edit: What's scarier? An obvious bias source screaming nonsense 24/7 or a supposed unbias source subtly distorting facts when it suits them? Which will have more influence on public perception? Which is a better propaganda machine?
And they've had journalists call out pro-Israel bias:
In November 2024, 230 members of the media industry including 101 anonymous BBC staff wrote a letter to Tim Davie accusing the BBC of providing favourable coverage towards Israel and failing its own editorial standards by lacking "consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza".
The BBC are a giant government funded media company, they know how to present a good image of themselves and have years of good publicity and marketing to solidify that image. But be under no illusion that they are unbias. They push political agendas as much as any American private news organisation, just with more subtlety and an air of professionalism and officialdom to more legitimise their stance.
That's not to say they don't do good journalism or can't be used as a credible source at times. But just to remember that they too are bias and have masters who push agendas.
It's not going to stop the genocide, obviously, but would you rather they just shut up and put up with it? Would you rather they supported Israel?
This is a show of solidarity.
The more there are, the more emboldened others are to do it too. The more people condemning genocide, the more likely politicians are to do something about it. Particularly if those people have public followings of their own.
Shares of the vote in general elections since 1832 received by Conservatives[note 1] (blue), Liberals/Liberal Democrats[note 2] (orange), Labour (red) and others (grey)[1][2][3]
The Conservatives forming from a split in the Liberal party doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are two very different parties. Or at least they used to be, until New Labour became a thing...
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we're not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
Not to mention one person having multiple accounts for different purposes and business accounts. Instagram is big, no doubt, but not 2 billion users big
Hey Russia, thoir Ifrinn ort! 'S e plàigh a th' annad.
This isn't their first time getting involved in Scottish politics. Remember when Alex Salmond had his own show on Russia Today and then started a right wing party under the name Alba that he couldn't even pronounce? He pronounced it as an English speaker would read it, Ahl-bah. That's not how it's pronounced in Gàidhlig and gave away entirely his lack of honesty to the cause. He just wanted power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes