Liking leaders because of their policies and not because of who has more rizz is just completely unheard of for you is it?
my other account: https://hexbear.net/u/mathemachristian
Liking leaders because of their policies and not because of who has more rizz is just completely unheard of for you is it?
Depends on the environment you want to foster. There are already lotsa places where these kinds of “debates” are had (lemmy.world for instance) but really no place where the people that are being debated about can relax and not have to be confronted with the dehumanization they already are confronted with in their daily lives.
Hexbear prioritizes the latter.
Downvotes are disabled on hexbear just fyi. One of the reason people leave a comment with stuff they disagree with. But upvoting yeah, very active userbase very actively upvoting means a lot of my feed on lemm.ee is from hexbear.
if people steer clear of our buses and trains because they’re busy doubling as psych wards and homeless shelters.
is not tame at all it dehumanizes some of societies most vulnerable. Imagine someone who has been in a psych ward or a homeless person reads this, and keep in mind both can be found posting on hexbear.
Right because this corner of the internet is so important and well-visited we gotta spend our state funds on a propaganda network, planting the seeds years in advance of it being able to germinate and fill it to the brim with emojis. Do you even know what a good bot costs nowadays? Vladimir Putin would have our heads.
They take transphobia very seriously there. There was a whole thing about lemm.ee defederation, they defedded from blahaj because of that etc.
Thats a .ml admin
https://lemmy.ml/post/18761554
see the link to “kristinas post” for The hexbear take on the situation (nutomic is banned from hexbear afaik)
Play the first one its amazing, and if you are wondering what it was that was missing watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgJazjz9ZsA
70% is fair think when theyre talking to me, but if theyre talking with eachother it drops dramatically lol.
scottish english might be a good analogy. If they talk to someone who only knows plain english they will take that into account, but amongst eachother youd be lucky to get the general gist of the topic at hand.
Id say its a bit more, I need azeri speakers to speak slowly there are quite some terms that I need to take an educated guess at. (para=pul for instance)
Perfect response. Just 😗👌.
What academic history have you read?
Alright, lets start you off with readsettlers.org then
I bet you dont read many history books.
It isn’t 😄
I assume you saw it, but others might not. I replied to a similar question here:
That comes after very in-depth reading. What got me that far to even trust their judgement that this kind of research would be worth my time was the fact that they were consistently right about takes on the USSR that seemed ludicrous. Just that they seemed to really know their stuff about USSR history especially the Stalin era. So I started reading
Michael Parenti - Blackshirts and Reds
a rather short book about anticommunism in the west. I already had very left views but what stuck with me was that I required a revolution to be “perfect”, the outcome sure and everyone had to be happy, an unrealistic standard considering the kind of fundamental change I envisioned. Or in Parenti’s words:
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
Once I had conceded my previous “anti-tankie” views and thought of the USSR not as a failed revolution that started of well-intentioned but was led astray by power hungry dictators, but as a successful revolution that had to endure a constant onslaught, physical as well as political, I was “through the looking glass” so to speak.
Then the genocide in Gaza happened and I kind of looked at the countries we were allied with, who were consistently some of the worst offenders of human rights. The whole supporting violent dictatorships in former colonies wasn’t news to me, but when put into perspective I had a “Damn we really are the baddies aren’t we” moment.
I realise that this doesn’t answer your question on Ukraine and the Uighurs but that’s because I don’t have the time right now to get into a debate on that, and the original question was on what changed my mind about it which was less the actual research I then put into, but the heavy-lifting on even questioning the western narrative was done before that.
To answer your question in a nutshell however: The reason the situation in Ukraine deteriorated this far, to the point that the ethnic russians in Ukraine had to even put up “self-defense” forces was meddling of western capitalist forces. The article that I keep referencing on that is ( CW for pictures of dead bodies and gruesome descriptions of fascist violence):
The open fascism in the paramilitary groups that later got put under the umbrella of the Ukrainian army was an open question mark for me, this article gives a very detailed answer to that. The details in that report post 2014 are corroborated in the UN reports as well:
As for the so-called “genocide” of Uighurs in China, the “evidence” is very very circumstantial especially considering the scale alleged. Millions of people are alleged to be held in internment at some point, a scale that should be visible from space. I mean manhattan has a population of 1.7 million, where are all these people interned?? As an example of one of the oddities about the whole allegations. The only countries that seem to care are outspoken anti-communist countries, with the whole muslim world not considering the crackdown on religious extremism in Xinjiang a genocide. All the articles I kept getting linked were “oh how terrible the situation there is, what an evil evil government” with no one seemingly caring about the actual people. It’s all just treated as an abstract talking point. And the only references boiling down to two reports by Adrian Zenz
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02634937.2018.1507997
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02634937.2021.1946483
a person with some questionable viewpoints
All the stuff around it seems to be pushed by Washington based anti-communist thinktanks trying to establish an “east turkestan”. The whole movement is heavily US-financed. See here for more info:
That’s what changed my mind about it all anyway, but like I said I probably will not be able to go into more depth about this, as I have spent too much time on this already.
Sounds like xi is the lesser evil compared to the US presidents then… but most of what you said is untrue.