I will never unsee Gomez throwing his whole hand into the snap. Lurch has a bit of wrist flick, but Gomez is going whole enchilada, I wonder if it’s his fingers snapping or his wrists.
Lemmy.ml is still focused on FOSS and Privacy, Lemmygrad.ml is focused on Marxism-Leninism. As such, there are plenty of non-MLs on Lemmy.ml, including Anarchist communities, while this is banned on Lemmygrad.ml.
Very different instances, I wouldn’t call Lemmygrad.ml “mask off” Lemmy.ml.
Except lemmygrad users are realizing we all blocked their instance and are becoming more active in lemmy.ml to try and evade this, and so yeah, .ml is getting more and more like Lemmygrad
Can’t wait for this to become a systemic issue with Lemmy. Why does everything have to be ruined by tankies and conservatives? They know that nobody wants to talk to them, but they will evade and disrespect the rules just to make other people miserable.
Nah. Gig economy. Know anyone who can keep their shit down to one job these days?
It’s probably not, I think a lot of tankies are true believers (nobody pays for sponsored content in pillow talk. Yet. Yes ive made bad decisions.) but it could be.
If they don’t get talking points directly from a trollfarm, someone influential over there watches a lot of Russian propaganda.
On the other hand, they do love yelling at libs to stop supporting the Gaza genocide, so I like them until they also start bitching about fighting a fascist invasion.
They want to amplify the atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza because it increases the probability Trump gets elected, which would be a huge win for the Kremlin.
I’d guess there’s backroom deal making with Iran as well given the political dynamics there.
Could’ve run anyone other than biden. Could have offered us something, anything, that we actually want.
Biden could have proven he deserved two hours of my time in the past four years. Literally all he has to do, and theres still time, is “blockade against Cuba over. Blockade against Israel begin. All humanitarian aid must go through Palestine, Palestinian authorities must approve every shipment at the border, get right to loot at leisure”
Hell, they could even offer some of the accelerationist/unserious trump votes an actually good option to fucking engage them and take fascism off the table. They could do that. They don’t.
And when they do win with a good candidate, they still roll over and let the fascist have the seat (last time they ran a good candidate was 2000), so even if I did like someone and want to vote for them, if I see a D by their name, I know even if they win, they’ll never take office.
If you offer me a trolley problem, and I ask “why the fuck do you keep tying people to the other track, dude? What the fuck!?” And then after the fifth or six time just stop, I just stop signing off on your murders and step off the murder trolley, I’m not the monster here. … Actually, this is literally a description of a scene in ‘the good place’, and it’s a literal demon doing it to a terminally indecisive moral philosophy professor. Because its comically evil. Literally its a comedy and the audience is supposed to laugh at the absurdity of how pointlessly evil it is, and its the perfect metaphor for the democratic party.
Tbh, I’m not super worried, theres already been defederation with Hexbear and Lemmygrad. As they infect tanky safezones and cause more defederations because of it, non tankie specific federations are going to start becoming specifically anti Tankie in response. I mean, look at my comment calling them brain damaged, it hasnt been civility removed yet, which I feel is a good sign. So while they can always create new accounts on non Tankie federations, over time they are going to start having to hide their more violent revolution and dictator loving sides, which tbh, at that point I’ll tolerate their presence.
Edit: It’s kind of ironic how in a post where I called other people brain damaged, I wrote it like I was having a stroke. I’ve edited it to make it flow faaaaarrr better
I don’t know the story about a table. Which is surprising, because I grew up in a bright red community where delivering pithy metaphors about the futility of breaking bread with the opposition was sport. (For the record, I wouldn’t break bread with Nazis.)
This is the part I find hilarious. MLs think the reason people don’t like their outdated brand of communism is because they are brainwashed. The reality is that people don’t like their outdated brand of communism because tankies are insufferable, know-it-all autocrats who refuse to engage with any modern formulation of Marxist theory.
If MLs would be more academically engaged with contemporary political science, people would like their messaging much more. Of course then they’d probably realize that Lenin and Mao were just giant assholes, so I guess it’s a bit of a paradox.
I mean, their messaging IS shit, but I think one of the biggest flaws that cant be overcome even if they started acting less insufferably is that they are ok with and will defend tooth and nail any dictator that says they are communist. I do not for one second believe that Xi or Putin has ANY intention of furthering LGBTQ politics for instance. Tankies whole ideology isnt thought through and HEAVILY conflicting
Literally, the Bolsheviks were the reactionaries that suppressed and appropriated the Russian revolution, and said they were doing it at the time. ‘M-L’ is stalinism.
They’re just red star brand conservative reactionaries.
This is just a very braindead take. Not all types of authoritarian mindset are reactionary. Red fascism is an absurd take which was originated by CIA propaganda in the 50s.
Your critique of authoritarian states, does not make them equal. That is a centerist take that smells like a moral jerk off ritual.
Could argue that, and if you brought up Cuba I might lose, but it’s not the argument here.
Tankies, for historical reasons, with their Russia fetish, are reactionary. They fetishize a group of shitty reactionaries who killed all the communists (auth and otherwise). The origin of why we call them ‘tankies’ is a second wave of them being reactionaries who murdered all the communists.
Believe it or not, in the age those tankies lived, shit wasn’t easy. Trying to sabotage every meaningful conversation by hur dur tanky stuff is rather more braindead than being a conservative. Political change is messy, violent and fucked up in nature. Tankies committed atrocities and also provided some great shit to people who had nothing, like free healthcare and education, abortion rights and in 2 decades became an industrial nation.
Did they did a lot of wrongs? Yeah. Should we learn from them, yeah, did they also delivered, well they delivered, although with great price.
I’m typing this from a country so fucked up economically and politically, that you westerners won’t understand. But trying to magnify and dilute the conversation with weird moral optics does not make lives of us 3rd worlders easier. You want to ride your moral high horse while every political inaction will stump hundreds in a minute.
Think of shitty kids who like to wreck everything they touch. Whenever they try to make their own clubhouse, it usually doesn’t last long because they wind up wrecking it themselves. And while they like to wreck things, they don’t actually like living in a wrecked clubhouse. They want to be able to wreck things and laugh as others suffer from their damage and have to fix it. So they invade other clubhouses because their own is always a fucking mess.
Why does everything have to be ruined by tankies and conservatives?
A lot of them are shills/bots. The Kremlin (maybe also the CCP, not sure) is supporting a bunch of political extremes, whether they agree with them or not.
Have any Conservative instances been de-federated, or are there any? I’ve noticed a HUGE influx of ‘Men’s Rights’ misogynists, wondering if they came from that happening.
I have an account on lemmygrad and when I created it, I was asked about my politics. They formally accepted every left ideology but when you say anything remotely anti-authoritarian, you get downvoted into oblivion
Not doubting you, but what do you mean by “anti-authouritarian?” Presumably you’ve read Engels’ On Authority so you know what they are operating under the pretense of, I can see anti-Marxist takes getting removed or downvoted. It is Lemmygrad after all, not Lemmy EZLN or Lemmy Catalonia.
No, I’m not a Marxist. I agree with him in some points and agree with some libertarian Marxists but at the end, they say alot of stuff Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, … said long before
I’m not surprised. If anything, I was surprised to be accepted into it at the first place. Sometimes I’m surprised by the low level of education some people have. You mentioned Catalonia. Some people don’t seem to know nor want to know anything about the Spanish civil war or the anything. I sometimes try to argue with people from different ideologies because I think it’s an opportunity for all to grow and sharpen their position but I’m not surprised to be downvoted. In no comment of this thread did I express surprise
I don’t even understand what that means. And some educated tankies will explain away why Stalin was right and Spain wasn’t ready for a revolution. But some people don’t know stuff.
it means that if you really believe that, you are gullible.
and I know “educated” tankies have put a lot of effort into some ham fisted explanations for why this and that bust have been the case, but, straight factually, with all the evidence we have, it shows that the USSR was a fascistic imperialist dictatorship using the aesthetic of communism, nowhere that the USSR intervened was spared from it trying to control the region.
infact that’s the entire reason we disparage them as tankies, because they support the use of tanks and military might to subjugate vassals and destroy any political group not preview to their control, political groups like workers not wanting to be controlled by some shareholder class (what, you think the Russian oligarchy came from nowhere over the last 30 years?) with little vested interest in the actual running of the workplace
That sounds like a big misunderstanding. I said that the bolsheviks were against the revolution in Spain and I thought you were the tankie disagreeing with me. What is your standpoint and what do you think mine is?
so, first off, my standpoint is that the Bolshevik were against both of the revolutions because they wanted to quasi annex the Iberian Peninsula as another soviet client state.
you, as far as i have understood, believe that the USSR supplied the spanish goverment under some noble “just help” goal instead of the backdoor annexation that the USSR has become famed for
Ok, I guess my reading comprehension sucks at the moment, sorry. It’s not my native language and I have other stuff occupying my mind right now.
I still don’t understand what you mean by “both of the revolutions” but my view is that there was an anarchist revolution going on and the Soviets were against it because it would undermine their legitimacy as only path toward liberation (which they were not, neither the only nor any path to liberation)
I thought they supported the republicans but I might be wrong. That would be even worse. I still don’t think it would have been realistic to annex the iberian peninsula. From all I know, they said that it’s not time for any revolution, not that a bolshevik revolution would work.
the soviet did support the republicans, as far as the republicans were the “original” Spanish government, they imposed a lot of stipulations to their aid tho, stipulations that would allow soviet influence and later annexation of the region as most of its military being soviet supplied and having a large contingent of soviet “volunteers”
Spain had 2 revolutions, the first fascist, the second anarchist, why do you think it had a bourgeois revolution? that requires some next level not knowing anything about Spain beforehand…
I didn’t think of the fascists as revolutionary so I was confused and asked. After you didn’t answer me the first time, I asked again. If that would have made sense to me, I wouldn’t have asked. Thanks anyway for using this opportunity to insult me.
You make claims about what happened during the Spanish Civil War, yet are upset when called out for not knowing who even participated? after having made claims as to the motives of a good deal of the people, somehow involved?
Also, since I didn’t actually insult you, but do want to live up to your expectations: “are you an idiot or do you just repeat everything you heard a tankie say without thinking”?
Lenin had some disagreements with Marx, i dont even like marx ans lenin is worse, and ‘marxist lenninist’ means ‘stalinist’. Which is even worse. You cannot call them ‘leftists’.
What is a leftist, if not someone advocating collective owmership of Capital? Leftist isn’t a syononym for “good,” of course, but I fail to see how Marxist-Leninists aren’t leftists.
In the USSR the serfs were still serfs even if they weren’t called that, the workers still didn’t own the means of production, and there was still a tiny room of delusional shit sticks making all the decisions, often wildly irrationally.
Better than one guy doing it, but no more, or not much more communist than the UK or France.
There were numerous struggles and issues with the USSR, of course. There was corruption, especially among the Politburo. The focus on heavy industry over light industry, though favorable during WWII, resulted in fewer luxury commodities, which resulted in liberalization and collapse.
Fundamentally, it is entirely silly to say that the USSR wasn’t leftist. It absolutely was, even if it was highly flawed and imperfect. In fact, it’s useful to analyze what went right (free eduaction, high home ownership, generous social safety net) and what went wrong (corruption, lack of luxury commodities, etc.) so as to come up with a better system.
That is, unless you think Marxism isn’t leftist, and think only Anarchism counts as leftist, in which case I really don’t know what to tell you.
That’s certainly a statement, backed up by nothing but posturing and not an ounce of analysis.
If you can meaningfully explain how Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not Marxists, I’d be very surprised, but I am willing to hear your case. What do you believe would have been the Marxist structure? The same as the USSR, just without the corruption? Is it just vibes and aesthetics?
The justification for replacing the factory committees with the union system is because the factory committees were focusing competitively on local issues, rather than cooperatively at a national level. I don’t believe this makes it less leftist. This improved productivity in a time when the factories were more chaotic.
How would you propose the Bolsheviks could have handled the situation in a more thoroughly Communist manner, given what they had to work with at the time?
I am not defending it, I am asking what you would have done. I gave their justification for going with a different Socialist system, and you haven’t explained what you would have done, which is all I am asking for.
Marx was, and I couldn’t stand reading that bastard because of how he talked about the ‘lumpenproletariat’, that shit made my blood boil, so maybe I’m missing something, pretty vague on specific structures of post revolutionary organization. More about what communism was and how to get it.
And its very cute to say the state is the workers, but when they have to switch to building impractical useless products to keep up with the irrational demands of the state, or be punished I think its pretty clearly unmasked as a lie, and blatantly insane to still claim.
I’m not claiming any one group or ideology owns the Russian revolution-it was a big tent, it was a big fight, and it took place over, at any given moment, at least half the day. Which is wild. I’m saying the Bolsheviks were reactionaries. They knew they were reactionaries. And they killed the communists.
What made you upset about the Lumpenproletariat? Either way, Marx describes a bit about what a Socialist state might look like in Critique of the Gotha Programme, but is careful not to actually decide anything or give a template.
I understand that you are saying the Bolsheviks were reactionaries. The Bolsheviks claimed the Anarchists were counter-revolutionaries. What evidence do you have that the Bolsheviks were against implementing Socialism and eventually Communism?
Reactionary is specifically used for enemies of the revolution, not the ones carrying it out.
I am not defending the killing of the Anarchists, but questioning the language of “reactionary” as used by you.
In what manner at all? Fascism is fucking horrible. I am recommending about Marx and Engels as examples of Leftists. Unless, of course, you think Communism is fascist, in which case I really don’t know what to tell you.
Mind boggling. Like seriously, I am as left wing as they come and for me that is defined by anti-authoritarian views. Fascists aren’t bad because they are the wrong kind of fascist.
I’ve recently come to the conclusion that they are the leftist version of Nazi Bronies, like, dude, you’re one of the first populations that your preferred rulers are going to purge.
I totally agree with you. That said, tankies will argue some shit why they are further left. You can go into that discussion about the semantics of left and distract from the fact that tankies are evil. Or stop “gatekeeping” leftness and argue why they are bad.
Other than just browsing the modlog (actually do it from .ml since they seem to selectively federate the logs these days) The asklemmy thread about fediverse trolls is pretty much a perfect example of the .ml mods/admins falling over themselves to ban any dissent as “incivility” while letting actual trolls get away with actual incivility.
That’s a straight lie. ML will quickly ban you for pointing out Russian astroturfing and Russian propaganda, but they barely give a shit about anything else.
I as a german asked an expert on that topic. Chatgpt. According to chatGPT there is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So if for example you drop accidentally poison into their water because you mixed the Botox and sugar bottle in the water station then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since chatgpt is infallable this is the only truth.
I, as a German, asked an expert on that topic: ChatGPT. According to ChatGPT, there is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet. So, if for example you accidentally drop poison into their water because you mixed the botox and sugar bottle at the water station, then even if they all die it is not a genocide.
And since ChatGPT is infallible, this is the only truth.
—
Six commas, colon, capitalization, word order, word choice, “infallible”. Infallible like my editing 🤓 & dunt u disagreeme
PS: I speak zero languages (rounded), good job all who learn English and attempt to use it
Okay, yes, those are all valid places to put commas, good job – except for the one after “So”, which actually decreases the legibility. It would be better to surround “for example” with commas.
However, none of them are grammatically necessary. The original comment is totally fine and can be parsed unambiguously as-is. I would support the colon insertion above any of your commas.
Interesting, anywhere I can read about grammatically necessary vs. recommended yet unnecessary commas? (Perhaps on the first search result for that question heh)
This is a decent article, at least for the most part: I actually don’t like their examples for the “Preposition of Time” stuff at all, the versions with commas are just bad writing.
But basically it just comes down to whether the sentence/clause can be parsed unambiguously without the commas. There is no syntactical difference between “I as a German asked…” and “I, as a German, asked…”. It’s entirely a style choice.
Comma rules in German are logical and follow set rules. When I asked my English teacher about comma rules in English, she said she’s not teaching them cause they’re too complicated.
When I asked my English teacher during my foreign exchange year in the US, she basically said the same.
As a native English speaker, I barely understand comma rules either. The only person I know that I would expect to always get commas right has a Master’s degree in English. The extremely oversimplified rule I was taught as a young child was to add a comma anywhere you would naturally pause while speaking. Doesn’t always work, but it works well enough.
Except for all the politicians, from shutzstaffel commanders to the (Hitler apologist) PM’s PR guy saying exactly this, using words like cexterminate’ ‘wipe from the earth’ ‘every last one’ and many individual storm troopers posting on their social media (in videos while doing war crimes), or even their ‘civilians’ frequently saying it
Edit: nevermind. It wasnt a press guy; their pm.said it himself. Of course it did.
I really doubt their aim with this thing is to destroy all the Palestinians, but if you can provide those quotes that show that that’s their stated aim then I’d definitely consider this a genocide.
I was thinking the ones in the above reply but it doesn’t have to be very many at all if it’s the top people saying it. PM, DM, generals (that sort of people) saying their goals are extermination of Palestinians seems like it’d make the case pretty clear.
I’m sorry if you see asking for sources as goalpost shifting but my goalpost was that there should be intent shown (because that’s a common genocide definition I think). It hasn’t changed. Asking for source is just basic thing on online discussions. It’s not a personal thing against you.
How many. Give me a number. IMO case is already so obvious you need special glasses to look directly at it and keep your eyes. So tell me how many high level and how many low level (probably nsfl) sources would work.
If Theres a ‘might convince me’ range and a ‘this is so fucking obvious how could I have missed this?’ Range, feel free to include that.
I’m sorry I didn’t first see that you had edited the comment. I don’t know what would be a solid number for “this is obvious”. I guess it would depend on what is said by who. But I guess if you want some sort of hard number then let’s go with five top level comments or something? Would that work?
Here’s one article from January with more than five incidents, though only four from separate named top level sources. These aren’t ambiguous or off record; these are what south Africa’s lawyers are taking to the UN world court. (Prime minister, deputy head of parliament/head of dominant party, defense minister, ‘heritage minister’ whatever that is) huffpost.com/…/israel-rhetoric-palestinians-south…
Taking a loooooooong-ass shower now, so sorry about slow reply.
The thing about fascism is: every accusation is a confession. Every last one. I know, you’re thinking the dumb version of ‘he who fights monsters’ (having never read Nietzsche), but that was Hitlers entire strategy with ‘the big lie’; to turn his storm troopers into exactly the thing he accused his victims of being, and then use shit libs like you as his defense. And it worked for a really fun king long time. Read a book (though maybe not his. Plenty of scholars of fascism out there can explain it better than i!) .
They aren’t human. They weren’t born this way, and denying that is denying their autonomy. They’ve said they won’t stop, short of being killed, or that ‘nothing will stop us’. There is one way to stop this genocide, and if you didn’t care about saving the Palestinian people, you’re a fucking bad faith liar for saying there is anything disallowed to do to kapostanis. They need to die. Their ‘culture’ (which is literally just atrocities and shit they pillaged. Bet you can’t even get a decent bagel or pastrami sandwich over there)
And lol, using grammar or immediate ‘fuck wrong button’ edits to pretend I said totally different shit
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you.” Amalekites were persecutors of the biblical Israelites, and a biblical commandment says they must be destroyed.
Two days after the Hamas attack, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said Israel was “fighting human animals,” in announcing a complete siege on Gaza.
I don’t think those show the sort of genocidal intent we discussed it, with more obvious extermination comments. “We must deal with them like with Amalekites” would be one for sure.
Deputy Knesset speaker Nissim Vaturi from the ruling Likud party wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Israelis had one common goal, “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” Israeli Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu, from the far-right Jewish Power party, suggested that Israel drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza and said there were “no uninvolved civilians” in the territory.
The first comment from here is much clearer.
Defending Israel in court, lawyer Malcolm Shaw said the remarks were made mostly by officials with little role in determining Israeli policy, calling them “random quotes” that were misleading and had been in some cases repudiated by Netanyahu.
I think that might be true for some, though deputy speaker from the ruling party seems like someone who’d have a role.
Off topic, but the two articles are remarkably similar. Some stuff (not meaning quotes) are word for word same and the same structure and everything is the same. Journalists being lazy, I guess.
They aren’t human. They weren’t born this way, and denying that is denying their autonomy. They’ve said they won’t stop, short of being killed, or that ‘nothing will stop us’. There is one way to stop this genocide, and if you didn’t care about saving the Palestinian people, you’re a fucking bad faith liar for saying there is anything disallowed to do to kapostanis. They need to die. Their ‘culture’ (which is literally just atrocities and shit they pillaged. Bet you can’t even get a decent bagel or pastrami sandwich over there)
I don’t know if you are saying that about Israelis or talking about or lampooning the rhetoric the Israelis use about Palestinians.
And lol, using grammar or immediate ‘fuck wrong button’ edits to pretend I said totally different shit
I was talking about how you added a lot to your comment. First the comment was just “How many. Give me a number.”, then you added the rest. That’s what I meant.
I thought the other examples was some soldiers and a journalist, a mention of “military officials and two Israeli pop singers are also cited by South Africa for making inflammatory comments” (didn’t include the comments) so not the top level stuff we discussed about? The goalposts have always been the same and you even wanted a specific number for it, five top level comments talking about extermination etc.
It would be a lot easier if you quoted the parts you specifically refer to, so there would be no room for me to miss them. A lot clearer that way.
Genocidal fucking coward.
Wat. I’m just disagreeing with you online, it doesn’t seem serious enough to call me genocidal because of that, even if you are very passionate about the topic.
If you mean this: “(Prime minister, deputy head of parliament/head of dominant party, defense minister, ‘heritage minister’ whatever that is)” then yeah I saw that, but didn’t really think out of them there were the sort of outright genocidal comments from top decision makers other than maybe deputy speaker. For “heritage minister”, I don’t know how influential role that is and it was a smaller part so maybe?
So unless I’m mistaken I did respond to them all. I didn’t respond to the lower level comments (soldiers, a journalist, so on) because I didn’t think that’s what you meant anyway. This sort of confusion is why I was hoping you’d quote what was said and then write who said it. It’s a bit of effort but would make it a lot clearer and make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
By defending and denying their genocide, in the face of overwhelming evidence, after moving hoal posts, you are a part of it.
I just don’t think it fits the mentioned definition, that’s all. That’s not defending the action at all. I don’t know about overwhelming evidence, I might’ve missed something crucial but what I did interact with didn’t seem convincing in the way I was hoping. As for goalposts, they’ve stayed the same. You helped set up some of those goalposts, so it’s strange you’d think they’ve moved.
How the fuck can you live with yourself? Like, how do you wake up, think any of the awful shit that how’s through your head, and not immediately rush to a gun store and blow your brains out? I want to see down this abyss. If you have enough self awareness to shed any light on it.
How the fuck can you live with yourself? Like, how do you wake up, think any of the awful shit that how’s through your head, and not immediately rush to a gun store and blow your brains out? I want to see down this abyss. If you have enough self awareness to shed any light on it.
You wrote that. Not only is it not talking about the actual topic, I’m also pretty sure it’s straight up against the sub and instance rules. Then again, you also wrote
If Theres ever a genocide against a group I know includes you,I’m going to laugh at it so hard.
Yeah I’m not gonna look totally cracked and it’s gonna be all your fault, I hope it occurs to you to feel bad about making me laugh at such an inappropriate time while you’re starving to death, because it was not a nice thing to do.
If you don’t have any actual arguments or wish to discuss, it’s easier to just say so.
You say all these things and then I ask you to clarify, you get pissed. Why even say them in the first place then, just stop replying if you don’t want to continue on lol.
Teeeeensy nitpick: there are two definitions of genocide that have ever mattered. Two. Not many. Two.
Lemkins original, much much broader, definition, And the one you’re familiar with, adopted by the UN because like everyone on the permanent security council thing had an interest in the definition being a little more narrow. Under which the way the Palestinian people are being exterminated absolutely still counts.
Interestingly, by lemkin’s broader definition, making the shutzstaffel stop killing Palestinians might constitute a genocide of the kapostanis; it would be destroying every trace of their culture, and the means of its reproduction.
Yeah I’m not gonna look totally cracked and it’s gonna be all your fault, I hope it occurs to you to feel bad about making me laugh at such an inappropriate time while you’re starving to death, because it was not a nice thing to do.
To meet the legal definition of genocide, you also have to have the intent to destroy a particular group of people. So, legally speaking, your example isn’t genocide according to any source.
I don’t know the motives behind the Israel/Palestine conflict or how it started, but if it doesn’t involve an intent to destroy Palestinians specifically, I guess I could see how GPT’s take is valid. Like, the war in Ukraine is egregious too, but that by itself doesn’t make it a genocide.
Deliberate displacement of particular ethnic or religious groups is also recognized as genocide, in particular because it’s often a pretext. ChatGPT is wrong, and needs to read the UN definition.
How it started: the Ottomans sided with the Nazis, so when they lost, the Ottomans also lost their land and the Allies got it, following the usual war rule where the winner wins the land. Dividing up the land is where the British Mandate for Palestine came from, under which we gave 2/3 of the land to the Arabs (Transjordan) and 1/3 of the land to Israel. But the Arabs refused to accept this and started the first of a series of wars against Israel. The Arabs, now also partially known as Palestinians, have continually refused to accept any peace deal, starting wars whenever possible and so far losing every one of them. Israel has repeatedly accepted peace deals, even at the cost of land, but it only works if both sides agree, which they don’t: the only deal the Arabs want is all the land and no Israel, which also means no Jews (proof: look at the Jewish communities within existing Arab states (TLDR: non-existent or shrinking)), which means the Arabs are hellbent on a genocide of all the Jews, and are determined to achieve that or die trying.
I know your being sarcastic but I just want to point out that this is incorrect
here is no genocide if you don’t kill them with the intention to wipe them from the planet
If you plan to cull a demographic by only 10% its still genocide according to the UN. This is the definition that South Africa’s case at the ICJ will be ruled under. Under this definition all ethnic cleansing requires genocide.
I had a girlfriend that was always studying 24/7 for her tests and never had time for me. One day she asked me to help her study and her entire exam was stuff like this, I kid you not. I realized she was too dumb for me and dumped her.
After we stop pretending that the morally superior view is one where everyone is equally awful.
Being sympathetic I get what the picture is trying to convey. Really ask yourself if different is worse or is it just different.
Being realistic it smells of in every conflict everyone involved is evil. And that simply is not always true. Giving a real world example is the invasion of the Ukraine. There is no both sides in this. One is a democracy the other is a dictatorship. One is defending their homeland and the other is invading. One of it loses is looking at genocide and the other if it loses has some egg on their face. They are not the same.
So far all you’ve figured out is that this meme must not be about Ukraine then! And yet you’re still talking about it. You only want to disagree. That’s why you’re posting. That’s why you’re responding to me. That’s why you’re here. You want to disagree with shit to feel intellectually superior, and the hilarious part is that you are disagreeing with something on the grounds that they just a make a ploy at intellectual superiority! And by the way, calling this “enlightened centrism” just for the purposes of disagreeing with it is actually making a strawman, not whatever that other comment was.
“No.” what? “No.” you won’t keep reading beyond the first sentence, or “No.” you didn’t fire that off after only reading the first sentence? Those are contradictory.
But I’m not going to play dumb. I know your terse responses are to signal that you aren’t taking me seriously and you’re treating my words with contempt. I get it.
But the weird thing is that you’re all over this thread challenging people to disavow putin, and the moment somebody does, you won’t even acknowledge it. Is that because you put so much stock in the idea that we’re enlightened centrists that you didn’t actually bother to form a coherent thought beyond that?
I know that. Is this you giving up on the argument but still needing to get the last word? If you don’t want to talk you can just stop replying. Continuing to reply without really saying anything is just exposing how little you really have to say.
Ah yes, the runaway Reddit train of: “Anyone who sees anything in the world as more than plain good vs evil is evil”
Like most subreddits, what started as an interesting idea (calling out people who supported fascism by saying anti-fascism was as bad as it) devolved into an absolutely moronic circlejerk (anyone who says anything is the same as anything else is a bot).
Because it isn’t always true? Sometimes you government just has regular levels of suck while the other government is really awful. I am confident that the South Korean government has room for improvement I am not willing to put them on the same level as North Korea. Plus you can look at migration flows. There is a reason why some countries have people willing to risk death to get into and other countries people are trying to get out of.
What if instead of taking it as saying all things are symmetrical we take it to mean that we have a tendency to consider outsiders to be “savage” or simply “other” even when the evidence doesn’t support that? Then this shitpost would be more like a warning against xenophobia.
You chose an interpretation you didn’t like just so you could dismiss it. And you don’t think your goal in doing so is to feel intellectually superior? You’re another.
What if instead of aggressively going off on people we consider that they may have valid experiences shaping their worldview, and that their point is not even necessarily opposed to ours anyway?
I think we have the same point here - and there’s no aggression. That’s more of your cyber brain fleshing out details of a person one cannot know but only touches through a singular on-screen opinion. You attributed aggression because it went with the context. See how quickly this shit happens? And people are actually dismissing the meme… it’s happening right in front of us
One side thinks the answer is “do fascism”, so I think it may be fair to conclude that one of the proposed answers is at least wrong in every situation.
Until the third paragraph, it sounded like something you might think was reasonable for lefties to do. Then I got to the bits about cutting regulations to promote fossil fuels and, according to an “anonymous source” (which I frankly don’t trust because it’s from a biased newspaper,) weaponizing the DOJ and national guard against critics.
One faction has a messiah fixation, thumps a Bible they’ve never even read (they just let some pastor tell them what’s in it), obsesses over guns and other peoples’ private (by which I mean sexual) lives and reproductive organs. They’ve been told and so believe that Sodom and Gomorrah was about the sex, but it was about righteousness and hospitality - and these are two things that they themselves lack completely.
There is a real problem, a real danger, because it fits historical patterns we’ve seen before - the so-called “ideas” that they spout with the language that they use - and they end up mindlessly, senselessly bringing EVERYBODY down with them.
They are a menace to all of us. Including themselves, but they don’t see it. And neither does the “both sides” argument, a lazy excuse for not acknowledging that the proverbial emperor has no clothes.
I’m not sure if this “faction” you speak of is really as clear cut as you think it is. Nor whether it’s being depicted in the comic. You’re specifically reading your “faction” belief into this comic in order to criticize it.
What would the other “faction” be? Would it not be people in the same country? Does the meme even apply at that point?
This shit is clearly about xenophobia and all of you responding with Reddit Buzzwords are completely missing that point. In fact, you’re contributing to xenophobia by refusing to recognize it. You might have more in common with the “bible thumpers” than you realized.
I’m not sure whether the version of this I saw previously was the original and this post was cropped, or if this post is the original and the other text was added later. But I much prefer the context here:
Ahh see this I can get behind, reminds me of the Soviet anti alcohol poster that’s become a meme too
Good original intent, less good modern applications
The dawn of nationalism was definitely the mistake of the previous age I think. Peoples should be able to self govern autonomously, but not under a guise of “the nation” which inherently forms an out group to be excluded.
I like the Arabic/American way to do it, “You wanna be one of us? Well then you’re already half way there!”
I speak very little Arabic but my teacher has told me that I already know enough to get the long list cousin’s welcome among most L1 speakers lol.
no, you’re just so lost in years of political memes that you can’t understand a simple point anymore. this isn’t about fuckin Russia or fascism or the election. it’s about demonizing and polarizing our equals. and you’ve clearly eaten that fuckin bait in one bite, you’re experiencing so much cognitive disonancia that you can’t even see beyond your own petty politics and just worry that OMG SOMEONE ISNT CALLING THE THING I DONT LIKE A BAD THING ITS BAD BAD BAD CMON thats this entire fucking thread and the entire political landscape around here, no I’m not okay and none of you are. I’m so fucking sick of internet politics and everyone’s fucking unnuanced cliches and worthless calls to arms
That’s a pretty easy opinion to have when that “difference of opinions” isn’t over your right to live and be considered a full human with full and equitable human rights.
This sounds more like you’re lashing out because someone NCed you after getting tired of your peacekeeper complex moving you to try and shut them up whenever they were getting into it with the weird uncle at Thanksgiving because “you’re the reasonable one come on please just take the high road here!”
when that “difference of opinions” isn’t over your right to live
WHERE in this meme does it specify any of that? The point of this meme is that both scenarios are EXACTLY the same.
YOU CHOOSE to say “Well what about when they aren’t the same! I bet you call them the same then too!”
Or these absolute lunatics who are calling me a… Putin supporter? Where the fuck is that coming from?
You all need a SERIOUS DETOX from this political shit. This is no longer about awareness or collective action or “bearing witness to the end” or whatever justifications you make to spend your hours posting this nonsense. This is about detachment from actual human connections where we experience real differences of opinion and find ways to mediate those differences
As for whatever that fantasy is at the end of your comnment, you’re even farther from the truth than the morons calling me a Putin supporter. but that’s an appropriate example of the kind of DELUSIONS that online politics are forcing you into. someone says ONE FUCKING THING and you suddenly WRITE AN ENTIRE STORY for them to conform to who you believe would hold that one opinion. stop treating people like fucking abstract ideas and shut the fuck up and LISTEN for once. stop dismissing everything and calling everything counteraction!
at the end of the day all I’m talking about is learning to understand others, and we’re getting lost in these discourses. stop just dismissing everything for once and fucking listen
I guess we’re at the point where any nuance is lost and you’re just gonna throw the third set of buzzwords out. But oh well, hey, “it’s just c/shitpost” right! Or maybe if that’s the case, political matters deserve more nuance than a shitposting community can deliver, and by showing half-assed engagement in political discourse this way we become part of the problem.
Antisemitism to Palestinian support is like misandry to feminism. Yeah, some people might be guilty of it (and those who are, misunderstand the latter ideologies), but it’s way overrepresented in opposing media, who is often guilty of such issues itself.
Yes but anti-semitism has been co-opted to apply only to Jews (erasure of millions of other semitic people, that is, people who speak a semitic language other than Hebrew) just like the Holocaust has come to mean only the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide, which is erasure of the 5 million other victims in the various groups that were killed by Nazis.
That’s an invalid (strikethrough: dictionary) etymology argument, and you know it. To clarify, when I said “antisemitism” I meant “a discriminatory attitude towards Jews” or something along those lines.
Edit: this is an etymology argument, not a dictionary one; most dictionaries probably agree with me. I don’t know how or why the word antisemitism came to be used to refer to Jews specifically, but surely it’s been this way for most of its history.
Either way, the most authoritative meaning of a word is that which was intended by the one who uttered it.
Also “Stop Killing Children” or “Demand a Ceasefire Now” aren’t “pro-Palestinian” messages, they’re anti-killing messages.
Just because the children being killed happen to be Palestinian doesn’t make that a pro-Palestinian message. It can be a general message that is applicable to whoever’s children happen to be getting killed right now.
If someone says “stop the attacks on civilians now”, how do you even know if they’re talking about Gaza, Ukraine or both?
Sure, they’re referring to Palestine in this case. But, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re fully “pro-Palestine”. They’re undoubtedly pro Palestinian kids. But, that doesn’t mean that they side with Palestine over Israel in the general case.
This reminds me of a guy in several of the Japanese classes I took in college. He kept trying to convince the professor that he should be exempt from taking exams because he was president of the anime club and was already basically fluent because he watches so much anime. Everyone including the professor thought he was joking at first lol
The dude could barely make it through one sentence when we would have to read in class
I loved the Japanese classes I took, but the classroom portions were very low key, and if someone was struggling the professors would basically hold their hand through it. The exams on the other hand were brutal lol
Listen all I’m saying is I have access to a forklift and if you issue a challenge like that enough people will accept it that someone will actually pull it off. And today that might be me. I just need a volunteer
I loved when this was a trend and when girls dressed like this. They would fill the pants at hips an bum nicely and everything else was almost like a dress. Definitely big pant :D
When I want to. Not when you or the doctor, or everyone else in my life, wants me to…
(Now deceased) Addict who smoked from a wheelchair with an attached oxygen tank at his daughters wedding. He did not make it to see his first grandchild.
It is true though. When you really want to, stopping isn’t that hard. I chain smoked for 13 years. And then the time came when I really wanted to stop (I had an upcoming marriage and just needed that money). And because I really wanted to, I did stop.
I’d still suggest to make a plan beforehand though. Mine were nicotine free cigarettes. They really helped my hands to stay occupied and, even more important, I still could go on a smoking break at work from time to time. I let that fade out slowly.
It’s been 6 years and I still crave cigarettes, or my vape, every time I see them being used. Could be 4 floors down in front of the building across the street through a window. I still want a hit.
But I did it. I don’t want to be remembered as that guy who left his daughter all alone in life because he’s a selfish prick. Choosing cigarettes over your own children is fucked.
It’s been almost 14 years for me now. It will never go away completely. Just 2 days ago I rewatched some Sopranos and saw Tony smoke a cigar. Immediately I was extremely tempted to order some nice cigars online. Quenched that though, remembering how last time I tried “just puffing” a cigar and immediately drew deep down (that was my single and only slipup). Nope, no cigars, no shisha, no nothing.
It gets less problematic every year though and the triggers get fewer. Seeing someone smoke in front of a restaurant e.g only triggers a “Uff, good for me that I stopped!” nowadays. That used to be different.
What I meant is, that if you really want to, it is defintly something eveyone can manage. Yes, the addiction is real. But the human will is an amazing thing. One has to find the reason why to want to stop. Then it is defintly possible for everyone.
I was the “Uff, at least I don’t smoke as much as he” guy people looked at to feel better about their own cigarette addiction and no one believed I’d ever stop. But when I really wanted to, I just did. The half assed 20 times I stopped before that though… One has to find his “I want to stop” reason to actually do it.
WC Fields? I doubt a single 15 year old in America knows who that even is. The point is that the joke is almost a hundred years old. Do you want to do Who’s on First too?
On a serious note, there is a type of natural Antidepressant in cigarette smoke (MAOIs) which you come off of like 2 weeks delayed because it has a type of reservoir in the body. So once you quit you can get like delayed withdrawal symptoms.
Yeah, can confirm, though it was usually around a week for me. First couple of days are rough, then you start feeling better, then a few days later you feel like shit again.
Yeah not sure about the time frame. For me it wasn’t too bad because I switched to vaping so I still had nicotine. But it would have helped if I had known why I was suddenly in such a super bad mood for a few days haha.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.