top 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 34 points 2 months ago (1 child)

The military bases doing the imperialism are named after those guys and what the Confederacy wanted to do if they won the war was take over Cuba and Venezuela and rename the Gulf of Mexico the American Sea. America is what happens when you aren't a tankie and quit Reconstruction.

yellow Michael Parenti about critical support:

And those who demand instant perfection, the day after the revolution, they get up and say "Are there civil liberties for the fascists? Are they going to be allowed to have their newspapers, and their radio programme? Are they going to be able to keep all their farms?" The passion that some of our liberals feel the day after the revolution, the passion and concern they feel for the fascists—the civil rights and civil liberties of those fascists who were dumping and destroying and murdering people before—now the revolution has got to be perfect! It's got to be flawless! Well, that isn't my criteria! My criteria is, what happens to those people who couldn't read? What happens to those babies who couldn't eat—that died of hunger? And there, that's why I support revolution. The revolution that feeds the children gets my support! Not blindly, not unqualified. And the Reaganite government that tries to stop that kind of process, that tries to keep those people in poverty and illiteracy and hunger—that gets my undiluted animosity and opposition.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    hahaha, HaHaHa, HAHAHA! The origin story for both the original Hexbear and Lemmygrad community is being banned from reddit for "promoting political violence" for John Brown memes and saying Sherman's march to the sea was good. Perfect case of projection.

    More like 19th century liberals: "We have to find a proper compromise with the slavers. I hate all of these tankie Russian Union bots saying this is about slavery. We all know this is about states rights and freedom!"

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Hey buddy, this isn't reddit, we can mention how John Brown is objectively a Saint in any religion that may exist!

    This meme is about modern morons who defend anything "anti-west"!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    What "anti-west" positions do you think are bad?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine is bad, for example. The Genocide against the Uyghurs (https://xinjiang.amnesty.org/).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine is bad, for example.

    What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world (i.e. NATO) starts amassing troops and weapons on its borders (or otherwise in position to attack, like with Iran), especially after a coup against a neighbouring state?

    The Genocide against the Uyghurs

    The one that hasn't been substantiated, one which the NATO-dominated UN concluded to there being no evidence for, one which your masters have long since stopped pretending to believe to have happened?

    And no, Adrian Zenz' word is not proof.

    (https://xinjiang.amnesty.org/).

    Oh, hey, it's the same people that sold you on Nayirah's testimony. Do you believe that one, as well, since Amnesty said it was true?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world (i.e. NATO) starts amassing troops and weapons on its borders (or otherwise in position to attack, like with Iran), especially after a coup against a neighbouring state?

    Maybe not invade a neighboring country yourself, and then keep investing material and manpower after the invasion has stalled for no discernible gain.

    The one that hasn’t been substantiated, one which the NATO-dominated UN concluded to there being no evidence for, one which your masters have long since stopped pretending to believe to have happened?

    What the UN conclude was that while there are reeducation camps and systemic discrimination, there is not sufficient evidence to say its a genocide. Which is like "We can prove that A killed B, but we can't prove that it's murder".

    And no, Adrian Zenz’ word is not proof.

    Funnily enough, it's only ever the deniers who bring up this guy.

    Oh, hey, it’s the same people that sold you on Nayirah’s testimony. Do you believe that one, as well, since Amnesty said it was true?

    That's a quite deliberate misconstruction of the facts. Amnesty International initially promoted the story, then they issued a retraction once they found that it lacked supporting evidence. There's no evidence of malpractice on their part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe not invade a neighboring country yourself, and then keep investing material and manpower after the invasion has stalled for no discernible gain.

    You said what they supposedly shouldn't do (which would mean that Iran shouldn't have struck NATO puppets in its vicinity that house NATO bases and equipment, by the way). You did not say what they should do.

    Also the implication that Russia is supposedly not winning when it has been advancing is rather silly.

    What the UN conclude was that while there are reeducation camps and systemic discrimination, there is not sufficient evidence to say its a genocide. Which is like “We can prove that A killed B, but we can’t prove that it’s murder”.

    Haha. What you are saying is actually "I can't prove that A killed B, but A definitely murdered B!".
    Do you even know what a genocide is?

    Funnily enough, it’s only ever the deniers who bring up this guy.

    So far, the only source the proponents bring.

    That’s a quite deliberate misconstruction of the facts. Amnesty International initially promoted the story

    "You are wrong to say that Amnesty promoted the atrocity propaganda. Amnesty did promote the atrocity propaganda..."

    Also,

    There’s no evidence of malpractice on their part.

    Amnesty International promoted the story

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    You did not say what they should do.

    Doing nothing would have worked out much better for them.

    Also the implication that Russia is supposedly not winning when it has been advancing is rather silly.

    Thing being, Russia hasn't been advancing.

    Haha. What you are saying is actually “I can’t prove that A killed B, but A definitely murdered B!”. Do you even know what a genocide is?

    Maybe re-read my post. That being said, genocide is a deliberate effort to destroy a national, racial, cultural or ethnic group entirely or in part. The crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese government against the Uyghurs constitute such an effort. The UN might disagree, because they are slaves to capital, and capital would like to keep trading with China.

    So far, the only source the proponents bring.

    It's not.

    Malpractice would be if Amnesty International had kept promoting the testimony after evidence had failed to come to light. You'd have to show that they acted maliciously and/or recklessly, which they didn't.

    Also, your argument for why Amnesty shouldn't be trusted is because they fell for a fabricated testimony 35 years ago. If that's all you have, then it's actually a glowing endorsement of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 2 months ago (49 children)

    Karl Marx was alive during the civil war. We know what he and his fellow communists thought about it. In fact, some of his fellow Communists were Forty-Eighters: German Radicals who were exiled after the failed revolutions of 1848, many of whom fought in the civil war.

    One of them was August Willich, an ardent Communist who thought Marx of all people was too conservative. A "Tankie" of his day.

    The German Communists, like Willich, who fought in the American Civil War believed that the war against slavery, and in the side of the Union, was a Social Revolution against the reactionary landed gentry of the south.

    Many Forty-Eighters settled in Southwest, Ohio. If you go to the rapidly gentrifying Cincinnati neighborhood of Over The Rhine, it's called that because it was originally made up of forty-eighter German immigrants, who became active participants in the underground railroad, and helped set up social programs to educate freed slaves, and provide them with housing and such.

    So the only person lacking critical thinking here is you OP. You've made up a guy in your head, to get mad at.

  • source
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 2 months ago (30 children)

    Oh friend, you have this wrong, I agree 100%, sorry for not spelling it out! This meme is about the blind modern day teamist support for any "anti-west" regime, no matter how vile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (26 children)

    Don't talk down to me. You made up a guy to get mad at. There is no human being on earth who holds the position you claim "Tankies" hold.

    Delete this post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    Delete this post.

    Nah, this meme is about the Russia-supporting dorks we see so much of. You don't want to see more jokes about losers who twist themselves into intellectually and morally bankrupt shapes to defend authoritarianism, block button's right there, because I'm gonna keep clowning on em :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 2 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    What I find so sad about you tankies is how you just put everything in categories, like "those evil liberals" (sure the propaganda in the USA is also plain stupid, like communism used as some term of scaring someone etc.)

    That the world is more complex, and authoritarian means are not the solution to establish healthy socialism long term... Russia or Puttler is purely destructive on basically all scales (now unquestionably joined by USA with their entirely idiotic leader)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    you tankies is how you just put everything in categories, like “those evil liberals”

    Russia or Puttler is purely destructive on basically all scales

    OP: "Tankies be like supporting slave holders"

    Is there like a single introspective thought rattling in your brain? Or still constipated?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (15 children)

    Why can't you explain what you think Russia should have done in response to NATO's actions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

    Funny thing, if Russia had just done nothing, they would be better off in every conceivable metric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 2 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Sooo stupid, Russia wouldn't have been a target, they possess too many nuclear weapons to risk having war with them (directly). You're being propagandized... Russian trolls are going brrr right now to destabilise the world sadly, result: more fascistic tendencies (further fuelled by capitalism...)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Russia wouldn’t have been a target

    "Just trust the most prolific invader in the world, which has been constantly invading and breaking promises, to not attack their enemy this particular time, even after admitting to pushing for war with said enemy".

    they possess too many nuclear weapons

    Didn't stop NATO from antagonising the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK.
    Also, NATO has been literally targeting civilians in Russia, attacking nuclear power plants, and committing other war crimes, with no nuclear strikes so far.
    Safe to say that you overestimate how much of a deterrence nuclear weapons are.

    You’re being propagandized

    This is said by a person that can only regurgitate propaganda of the most expensive propaganda machine in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    NATO has been (self-admittedly) pushing for the war with Russia for years.

    No, they haven't.

    Also, consider that your suggestion didn’t work for, for example, Iran. Iran did nothing, and yet, you empire still attacked it.

    Russia has nukes. Iran doesn't.

    Better how?

    They would be at peace, and the myth of their military might would still be unbroken.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    No, they haven’t.

    Haha. Decades of NATO higher-ups saying that expanding towards Russia will cause war with Russia, refusing Russia's membership in NATO, and admitting that the war was preventable by Ukraine not pushing to join NATO is somehow indicative of not pushing for war with Russia.

    Russia has nukes. Iran doesn’t.

    And? Sure, that does make NATO more cautious, but NATO has still been targeting civilians, has been carrying out strikes at nuclear power plants, has been committing war crimes against Russia, all without Russia using nukes. Going to also remind you that NATO also pushed for war with the USSR when the USSR did also have nukes, and did attack the USSR in various ways.

    They would be at peace,

    Haha. You trust your empire that has been constantly invading everywhere, doing genocides, carrying out terror attacks (including via DAESH) to be at peace in this case? Why?

    and the myth of their military might would still be unbroken.

    Considering that Russia has been beating NATO in this conflict, it seems that the only myths that got broken were of NATO's capabilities against near-peers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Decades of NATO higher-ups saying that expanding towards Russia will cause war with Russia,

    Nations can join whichever alliance they wish, assuming said alliance lets them. What you're describing here is a condemnation of Russian imperialism, not pushing for war.

    refusing Russia’s membership in NATO

    Russia never applied for NATO membership, there was nothing to refuse.

    and admitting that the war was preventable by Ukraine not pushing to join NATO

    By the same logic, world war 2 could have been prevented by just giving the Nazis whatever they want.

    Sure, that does make NATO more cautious, but NATO has still been targeting civilians, has been carrying out strikes at nuclear power plants, has been committing war crimes against Russia, all without Russia using nukes

    That's not true. Russia has been doing those things to Ukraine constantly throughout the Ukraine war, though.

    Considering that Russia has been beating NATO in this conflict, it seems that the only myths that got broken were of NATO’s capabilities against near-peers.

    NATO isn't a belligerent in this war. Your statement is nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Nations can join whichever alliance they wish

    Here, you claim that it was okay to join, for example, the German Axis.

    What you’re describing here is a condemnation of Russian imperialism, not pushing for war.

    Haha. "Us breaking these promises to Russia will cause Russia to go to war with us", "if we didn't make Ukraine join NATO, there wouldn't be the war". Really not pushing for war, yeah.

    Also, cute how you talk about "Russian imperialism" while also supporting the gang of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan (and more). Going to remind you that NATO is the most prolific invader in the world and is the primary force for imperialism in the world.

    Russia never applied for NATO membership, there was nothing to refuse.

    Formally? Sure. But NATO did let Russian leadership know that that wouldn't happen during talks.

    Either way, Russia joining NATO would have been bad for the rest of the world due to what NATO is - an imperialist alliance that acts to colonially subjugate the Global South.

    By the same logic, world war 2 could have been prevented by just giving the Nazis whatever they want.

    Pfft. You are the one claiming that Russia should have given the nazis whatever they wanted instead of taking action against them. You are the one that says that, for example, joining the German Axis was not an act of aggression and that nobody should have taken action against that.

    That’s not true.

    Ukraine: bombs buses with children, school dormitories, nuclear power plants, brazenly does things like operation SpiderWeb which perfidiously use civilians to carry out military action
    You: none of that happened.

    NATO isn’t a belligerent in this war.

    This is just laughable, especially considering the admittance that this war was completely preventable on NATO's side.


    Also, it's weird how much you want to whitewash the most prolific invader in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Kinda sad how deep russian propaganda is... But what do I expect of tankies anyway...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Weird how the people who just regurgitate what the most expensive propaganda machine in the world tells them, and who reliably believe things like Iraq having WMDs complain about "Russian propaganda".

    Also, it is such an amusing defensive reaction, as if calling something "Russian propaganda" makes things untrue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Eh lol maybe just end this stupid war! Where they are the unquestionable aggressor of...

    This war is so stupid on many levels... But Puttler cannot back down anymore without loosing his face, kinda sad situation...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Eh lol maybe just end this stupid war!

    It did try to negotiate peace, but the European powers that are the masters of Ukraine right now do not understand that language, it seems.

    Where they are the unquestionable aggressor of…

    So, you are saying that NATO pushing for war with Russia, carrying out a coup in Ukraine, breaking promises to not expand towards Russia, and generally being the most prolific invader in the world is not aggression? Haha.


    So, what should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world starts amassing troops on that state's borders (or otherwise in position, like in the case of Iran), especially after a coup against a neighbouring state?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Lol peace could be established tomorrow when they back out of their invasion.

    I hate USA's world policing as well and their imperalism, but this conflict would not exist, when Putler didn't get love fantasies of Hitler... You can try to turn it as much as you like, russia is the aggressor, they didn't had to invade (the krim in the first palce btw.).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    peace could be established tomorrow when they back out of their invasion.

    NATO would keep up its aggression against Russia, so peace can't be achieved that way (unless you think that the rest of the world being subjugated by NATO is "peace").

    Meanwhile, the European powers could have agree to peace at many points, including in March, 2022, and including before 2022, and including by not doing the coup in 2013-2014.

    I hate USA’s world policing as well

    Firstly, you still believe whatever it says about its enemies. If you were alive back then, you would have believed Nayirah's testimony.
    Secondly, calling colonialism "world policing" is incredibly disingenuous and whitewashy.

    but this conflict would not exist, when Putler didn’t get love fantasies of Hitler

    Incredibly weird to claim this, considering that you support governments that worship personal friends of Hitler's, shutzstaffel troops, and other participants in the Holocaust and the Lebensraum.

    Also, it's very obvious that the conflict would not have happened without NATO pushing for it.

    russia is the aggressor they didn’t had to invade.

    You are yet to explain what Russia should have done.

    (the krim in the first palce btw.)

    So, you think that the people of Crimea do not deserve self-determination? Do consider that even NATO studies agree that they wanted to split from Ukraine and join Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • peace at many points

    Yeah by giving up territory of the ukraine, sorry but not sorry... I don't don't see this as a valid option for the Ukraine. They were invaded! Actually I think even that Russia would need to pay for these war crimes, although I think the peace-deal would be far less.

    This is just stupid imperialism at its finest, fucking russia destabilizing world peace. USA is bad here too, but russias way to initiate propaganda throughout the (not just) western world. It's just sad.. That is just destructive by all means (erodes any real social progress, for example in europe, or well this stupid Trump). I think the development for example in Europe where all kinds of right-wing parties are emerging, supporting Russia for "whatever" reason and eroding any factuality/morality and social progress.

    You are yet to explain what Russia should have done.

    Just not fucking invade Ukraine, god damn it, Is it that difficult to understand?? They should just care more about their own people instead of trying to externalize all this internal damage due to Putin of their eroding economy they have.

    Also, it’s very obvious that the conflict would not have happened without NATO pushing for it. NATO would keep up its aggression against Russia

    Lol care to give me some factual sources about NATO invading russias territory??

    I don't like NATO, especially the bootlicking of Mark Rutte regarding Trump. But Russia or rather Putin is just straight up an imperialistic dictator, disregarding their own economy and slowly eroding their economy and welfare, the development of Russia since Gorbatschow is so sad.

    Would be nice if China would be more like the Blueprint for Russia, they are at least rather peaceful (yet), and thinking more about their people and general progress (e.g. by Not destroying the world with fossil fuels, i.e. switching hard to renewable energy).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Can you link to a post or comment from a communist who supports the confederates?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)
    I am not OP but a Black anarchist vanguard.

    I wouldn't mention the latter occasionally because you're still using lemmy, so you can't see my «Politics» label.

    I sat down to review all your historical assertions without a single citation. Meaning, I won't cite back if you don't.

    Are there Achtundvierziger today, or similar vanguard parties?

    Godric maybe projecting the trends a sees from camp threadiverse comments & posts, but do we even have a contemporary vanguard party doing praxis? PSL legitimately doesn't count, so if you bring them as an example, we have nothing further to discuss. You can also work with Godric to end campist rhetorizing moving forward. Whenever you both see campism, hold them accountable. I believe all of us🧵 want to end campism. I in particularly want to see Dengism邓理论 gone forever.

    Be aware that I use this instance exactly because I have given up on 习 🥾👅. So honestly don't bring it up.

    I am open for anything else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Any additional questions?

    Yeah, what in the ever living fuck are you talking about? This AI listicle-ass comment is genuinely illegible to me. I don't understand what you're trying to say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    You've never seen an ordered list?

    Want me to essay it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    I totally skimmed what you had written as it was pretty inchoherent. If your politics have become so esoteric that Lemmy users can't parse them, that's a 'you' problem and you might want to examine it.

    Like, the barrier to entry of Lemmy filters users here such that: most people here tend to have above average intelligence and reading comprehension.

    So, you're either posting AI crap, or have gotten so twisted on some kind of propaganda that you can't meaningfully comminciate with others. If you're actually human you shoild probably unplug from your political ideology source and talk to an old wise hippy or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    The ordered list in that comment serves no purpose, as the items are not even properly grouped. It just hurts readability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    They are grouped by topics 1 respondent, 2 politics, 3 literacy confirmation, 4 thesis, 5 warning, 6 intersection check, 7 commentary, 8 openness to dialogue

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    So, at the very least:

    • 1 and 2 pertain to the same topic. 2 even continues the same sentence.
    • 4 and 5 should be grouped together, as 5 refers to 4.
    • 6 and 7 should be grouped together. In part because they both are just regurgitation of propaganda made by y the same people that sold you on Nayirah's testimony, Iraq WMDs and the like. (Also, have to chuckle at the "campism" but when you very openly engage in pro-NATO campism.)
    • Just using standard paragraphs and not an ordered list would be more readable, since you are not enumerating anything, nor is there a good case for referring to each of these items by the numbers outside of the conversation about how useless the ordered list is here.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    1 differentiates from op, 2 outlines my politics which may also differ from op. Continued sentences is something everyone does, no?

    I can def. combine4&5, but will SpookyBogMonster keep quiet about point 4 if 5 is the only choice?

    6&7 need to be separated, as 6 is my intersection for Godric’s plea to end campist rhetorics, not my personal antidengist praxis.

    you very openly engage in pro-NATO campism

    whence?

    nor is there a good case for referring to each of these items by the numbers outside of the conversation

    brevity, citation, referencing, value, formatting, etc..

    I’ll edit an essay format you then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    1 differentiates from op, 2 outlines my politics

    Yes, but the way you separated them makes things less readable. They should be combined into the same sentence, not into two separate numbered list items.

    I can def. combine4&5, but will SpookyBogMonster keep quiet about point 4 if 5 is the only choice?

    Not clear what you mean here.

    6&7 need to be separated, as 6 is my intersection for Godric’s plea to end campist rhetorics

    Firstly, what do you mean by "intersection for a plea"? I suspect you think that the word "intersection" means something other than what it means.
    Secondly, Godric isn't making any pleas here. Godric is simply running propaganda for the most prolific invader in the world and hates on socialists.

    whence?

    I will assume you meant "where?", and not "whence?". I suspect that you think that those words are synonyms.
    Like, for example, when you claimed that Salvador Allende did a genocide. Also, complaints about "campism" are usually just support for colonialism (highly doubt that that is not the case for you). I can find more examples.

    brevity, citation, referencing, value, formatting, etc…

    It isn't any more brief than using standard paragraphs, nor does it simplify referencing, as one would just use markdown quotation for that here anyway.
    Not at all sure what you mean by "value" here.
    Your chosen way of formatting texts just makes them less readable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Godric is simply running propaganda for the most prolific invader in the world and hates on socialists.

    Then you can see why i made distinctions for points 1,2,5,6&7.

    Whence.

    you claimed that Salvador Allende did a genocide.

    Whence?

    Also, complaints about “campism” are usually just support for colonialism (highly doubt that that is not the case for you).

    They aren't, since I made points 1,2,5&7 pretty clear. Unless you think PSL abused antidengist black anarchists are colonists.

    I can find more examples.

    For yourself, a narrative, my question, anticolonialism, anti PRC, anti PSL, kittenzrulz123/emberkitty, Chileans, slavers, campists, or?

    Your chosen way of formatting texts just makes them less readable.

    I already essayed the former reply just for you, and applied your recommendations. SpookyBogMonster, kittenzrulz123, and you can mostly reread and address it if you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Then you can see why i made distinctions for points 1,2,5,6&7.

    No.

    Whence?

    The word is "where", not "whence". "Whence" means "where from", not "where".
    Alternatively, you could use "when" in this context.

    To answer your question, around the 30th of July, you were repeatedly asserting that kittenzrulz did apologia for a supposed genocide by Salvador Allende (among other things).

    They aren’t, since I made points 1,2,5&7 pretty clear.

    I mean, you do seem to complain about the PRC, as well as about the USSR a lot here, despite them being some of the most prominent anti-colonial forces during relevant timeframes. Judging by your assertions like how Allende did a genocide, as well as similar ones, your hatred for them seems to simply stem from your pro-NATO campism and the fact that your empire told you to hate those polities.

    Unless you think PSL abused antidengist black anarchists are colonists.

    This isn't even a grammatically sound sentence. Frankly, what is up with your English?
    Are you asserting that the PSL claimed that pro-NATO "anarchists" are pro-colonialism? If so, then yeah. Those people support the colonial metropole(s) efforts to colonially subjugate the Global South, which does make them supporters of colonialism.

    For yourself, a narrative, my question, anticolonialism, anti PRC, anti PSL, kibblebits, Chileans, slavers, campists, or?

    What are you even asking here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    No.

    Then you are literary handicapped.

    whence adverb

    1. from what place or source

    You made me cite a dictionary, since you're literary handicapped.

    around the 30th of July, you were repeatedly asserting that kittenzrulz did apologia for a supposed genocide by Salvador Allende (among other things)

    Source your claims, since you're literary handicapped.

    you do seem to complain about the PRC, as well as about the USSR a lot here, despite them being some of the most prominent anti-colonial forces during relevant timeframes.

    Anti colonial forcing the Ukrainian genocide, Filipino larceny, Japanese island debates, Indian border bounties, do I go for more examples?

    What are you even asking here?

    For whom are the examples you wanted bring up for, what purpose does it serve than blatantly sidetracking gish gallop?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Then you are literary handicapped.

    Ah, ableism. Incredibly misplaced, to boot.
    What you are saying is that you had to separate those points of your original list because of Godric's actions that were contrary to what you originally claimed. How those things are connected, you are yet to explain.

    You made me cite a dictionary, since you’re literary handicapped.

    More ableism.

    "From what source?" also doesn't work as a question in those context. You could have either asked "where/when did I say that?", or made the request "cite me saying/implying that". At best, if we are to keep "whence", it should be "Whence does it follow?"

    Also, "literary" and "literally" (and "literarily", for that matter) are not synonyms, and "literary" does not work in this context.

    Source your claims

    Here's you complaining about being banned for trolling in a memes community by making the aforementioned assertions. The context is provided in the comments, and does include people quoting your "Salvador Allende's genocide" thing.

    Anti colonial forcing the Ukrainian genocide

    Except there hasn't been a "Ukrainian genocide" apart from the Lebensraum+the Holocaust, carried out by Germany and their allies (including such groups as the OUN).
    If you want to claim that the famine of 1932 in the USSR (which, I remind you, affected the entire union, rather than some particular group (unlike, say Churchill's Bengal famine, or the Irish potato famine), which is what we would expect from a genocide) was somehow a genocide, then you should present your study to the historians that specialise on that famine, as they have come to a very different conclusion from you.

    Filipino larceny

    The what?

    Japanese island debates

    It's silly how you think that the Kuril islands should belong to unrepentant genocidaires that are under control of NATO.
    What is your argument here, even?

    Indian border bounties

    What "bounties"?

    do I go for more examples?

    You are yet to provide even one example for why we should supposedly consider the USSR and the PRC as bad. At least try to elaborate on what you have already claimed.

    For whom are the examples you wanted bring up for

    I am speaking with you, am I not?

    what purpose does it serve than blatantly sidetracking gish gallop?

    A Gish gallop would be if I just kept throwing different examples without elaborating. Kind of like you did in your last comment.
    Wait, do you even know what "Gish gallop" is, and why it has "gallop" in the name?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    A lot of people in the west think that Communists/Socialists are all leftwing, when there's plenty of conservative traditionalist Communists.

    There just more modern and outside the us, in places like China, Africa, Asia, and South America.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Y'all really can't help yourselves but to come into every anti-tankie post in the fediverse to call the OP stupid, huh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    There's folk who can't help but make anti-tankie posts in the fediverse, which specifically and directly are requests for that kind of responsive content.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    What liberals think tankies think:

    The Confederacy fought the US, so that means I like them

    What tankies actually think:

    The US is the Confederacy and that's why I hate it

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Johnson was able to reintegrate the planters into the political establishment. Unfortunately, John Wilkes Booth won.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    ya that Neo Slavery video by knowing better helped to open my eyes as to just how badly the americans luuuived slavery and racism truthfully. Same tjing with 'Some More News' video about 'Systematic Racism Doesnt Exist'

    Very few textbooks cover this topic of what happened to Black and Indigenois people from 1867-1968 and even after that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    What tankies actually think:

    Wait, why the fuck should anyone care what tankies think?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago

    OBVIOUSLY we should care because it's the internet and loud minorities dominate here, skewing our perception of reality and what political opinions are worth debating today, despite being fringe and unfeasible IRL /s

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago

    The OP is definitely sarcastic. It’s very clearly mocking people who simp for countries like Russia simply because of their adversarial relationship with the United States. I have never once seen a liberal sincerely assert that tankies like The Confederacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    This meme is just libel. There's no way a tankie would support the Confederacy

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] [S] -14 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    One would think so, but then we see the wild mental gymnastics going on to defend Russia. Pretty wild stuff!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I have seen more wild mental gymnastics from people defending the most prolific invader in the world (i.e. NATO) and claims that the rest of the world is bad for defending itself against it.

    On that note, what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world starts amassing troops on its borders (or otherwise in position to attack, like with Iran), especially after said invader carries out a coup against a neighbouring state?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    are you OK? You do know that nato funded and sent mercenaries to conduct the coup of Ukraine right?

    They tried the same thing with Afghanistan but the people there werent having anyof that.

    ALSO nato has been involved in more aggressive military operations than defensive ones since its conception.

    Im not saying the Russians are heroes or anything Im just givknf you the facts lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You do know NATO is a defensive alliance, right?

    So defensive that they can't stop invading everywhere?
    The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were such defensive actions, and so is the genocide of Palestine, according to you.

    The USA doing invading with some allies is not the same as NATO doing it.

    Name a single NATO state that did not participate in either of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Include Ukraine as a "NATO state".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Going to note that you failed to point to any NATO states that did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
    We can already safely conclude that NATO is not a defensive alliance.

    It has been the USA (& allies) invading, nobody denies that.

    You did, and let me quote you again:

    The USA doing invading with some allies is not the same as NATO doing it.

    In case you want to pretend otherwise, NATO is the US and its allies/vassals.

    For example the 2001 Afghanstan invasion was started by the USA, the UK, Australia and taleban

    The Taliban invaded Afghanistan in 2001? This has to be a joke.

    At that point it was not an NATO invasion

    Yeah, it was. It was organised by the core of NATO, and it was perpetrated by NATO states and their puppets.

    If you disagree, then tell us which states participated in it that were not de facto NATO states.

    it was UN trying to help clean up the mess that was Afghanstan civil war

    The UN is an organisation that is controlled by NATO. You are arguing that NATO giving itself green light to invade Afghanistan somehow proves that NATO did not invade Afghanistan.

    Was it the entirety of NATO just randomly invading Afghanistan?

    Nobody said that it was "random". It was a deliberate move to resubjugate Afghanistan.
    Why are you even trying to imply that somebody claimed that it was "random"?

    Also no. In Iraq in 2003 USA plus the coalition of willing, was not the entitity of NATO either.

    Ok. Which ones of those states were not de facto NATO states?

    The genocide of Palestine has been going on practically from the beginning of Israel

    Correct. A genocidal settler-colonial project planned by the NATO states and their zionist groups since before the formation of NATO.

    the latest whole huge mess has not been a NATO operation either.

    It's the same polities that were behind things like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The usual claims, that every time any NATO countries get involved with some unlawful USA invasions, is just part of Russian propaganda tactics,

    Haha. Seems like reality is just part of the "Russian propaganda" that lives in your head rent-free. Apparently, when something contradicts the notion of righteousness of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just "Russian propaganda", and for some reason can be assumed to be false or ignorable.
    Notably, you never actually question actual NATO propaganda that is verifiably a thing.

    trying to pretend its bordering countries joining NATO, because of the risk of Russian invasion

    And yet, it's NATO that is the most prolific invader in the world and pushed for war with Russia.
    Also notably, none of Russia's neighbours had issues with being invaded (no, Georgia attacking the peacekeepers and South Ossetians is not an act of Russian aggression), including the pre-coup Ukraine.

    If you think that the states that join the gang of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan to plunder Africa and Asia is fine because of a hypothetical risk of invasion by Russia (contrary to the history of its actions) and, well, participating in those invasions and genocides is fine, but Russia defending itself against attacks by the entity that has always been invading and doing genocides throughout its existence and which has broken promises made to Russia about not expanding towards it is somehow bad, then what you want is for the rest of the world to just roll over and get enslaved by you.

    is somehow NATO trying to attack Russia.

    Attempting to become a part of the most prolific invader in the world that has a history of, well, doing invasions and genocides, as well as constantly breaking promises is, in fact, an act of aggression.

    Going to also remind you that NATO has carried out war crimes against Russia, and has been targeting civilians and nuclear power plants. That is what you support, in addition to all of the other "defensive" NATO actions like invading Iraq.

    Claiming all these wars are just “NATO invasions”

    Cool. Which NATO states did not participate in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

    in attempt of trying to justificate Russian invasions.

    Ok. What are these "Russian invasions", plural?

    The whole reason countries like the Baltics - and now Sweden and Finland - have joined NATO

    You mean the states that worship WW2 nazis and have participated in invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as other ones), and have been beneficiaries of colonial subjugation of the Global South? Those states?

    is because Russia invades its neighbors the moment it wants, like it has done in Ukraine.

    And when else did Russia invade its neighbours "the moment it wanted"? I can name a lot of cases when NATO invaded whenever it wanted.
    Also, it is really silly how you just sweep under the rug why Russia "wanted" to attack Ukraine in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›