Why are men and women separated in chess competition at all? There is no logical reason other than sexism and transphobia. The reason the top women in the world are so far below the top men is because chess has historically been a man’s game and the history of and continued sexism has no doubt kept out women who could be just as good as the best men. I play chess regularly online and have lost to both men and women. I wouldn’t be surprised if several top chess players chose to leave fide in favor of other competitions over this.
Having the current best female chess player, Hou Yifan, be at rank 55 and be the third woman ever to be in the top 100, while the second best woman, Aleksandra Goryachkina, is at rank 347, doesn't exactly paint a very gender-balanced playing field.
I think the point is that the field should be left alone. Let players of both genders rank wherever they do. Seems odd to separate the genders for a non-physical sport.
In a way they are as there is no "men only" tournaments. There is open for all, and a few women only. You just won't see any women in the open for all tournaments as they fail to qualify so ending the womens tournaments would just result in having no female competitors at all.
Then you will get all the top tournaments with maybe a few women, none of them will likely win (based on current ranking), which will cause possibly even less women to try chess and reinforce the vicious circle (less win also equals less money, less sponsors). Basically, after that you will get protests as well.
There are 16 times as many male chess players than women so men dominate the open category by sheer number alone, it’s basic statistics.
As such the woman’s category is not so much a separate thing but a subset of the open one and if nothing else it provides visibility and a competitive field where women can deal with female instead of male asshole competitors so they can comfortably be catty queen bees instead of learning how to chest thumb.
Do you think that activities that are dominated by a certain gender are that way “naturally”, or would you maybe agree that societal factors and sexism play a role too? The idea of “just leave things alone and let people do what they want” often ignores the subtle way that men and women are encouraged towards or discouraged away from those activities.
Since men have been getting support and funding for over a century in sports and games like this, you end up with them dominating the field. Women’s categories bring in more female players that otherwise wouldn’t have a chance if the entire game was open only. But on the other hand, this enables concern-trolling over “transgender invasion”. It’s also applied questionably to sports that maybe don’t need this such as in the case of Zhang Shan & Olympic skeet shooting. It can reinforce gender stereotypes. Finally, I’d say it’s frustratingly slow at leveling the playing field.
I’ll assume you just didn’t understand what I meant so I will repeat it. Men and women can both play chess. Male brains are not superior to female brains. The reason there are more male pros in chess is because of the centuries long head start they had. To rectify this, there must be a conscious effort to boost female chess players. The current strategy to do this is to create a women’s league. At this rate, perhaps by 2100 there will be an equal mix of male and female pros, and we can abolish the gendered division in chess because it would no longer serve any purpose.
I’m a chess fan. Men-only events were abolished in the 1980s. There are now women’s events (no men allowed) and open events (everyone allowed). In practice open events are 90% male, and the male players, especially at the lower levels, tend to fit the smelly and socially inept stereotype. Playing in them can be unpleasant for women, and women’s events exist basically to provide playing venues where women can enjoy competitive chess while staying the hell away from us clueless males. As a clueless male myself, I can get behind that, no problem. I understand and I’m fine with it. How do cis women feel about playing alongside trans women? Idk, I’m cis male and I don’t feel entitled to spout off about that. But I think they are the ones I’d want to listen to the most.
The top levels from what I can tell aren’t as bad as the lower levels, since the effort it takes to reach that level of chess tends to weed out the clueless and lazy. There is still bad stuff though, e.g. the incidents with GM Alejandro Ramirez.
You might like the book Chess Bi tch (that is the title, damn censor bot),by WGM Jennifer Shahade reviewed here , about her experiences in both women’s and open chess events coming up through the ranks.
As for FIDE, there currently aren’t really alternatives at the top levels. FIDE on the other hand is not much of a factor in lower and mid level chess. Those events tend to be regulated by national and ad hoc federations, etc.
Does what cis women think about playing trans women really matter? You wouldn’t give a racist a time of day for saying they don’t want to play a black person, why should we care what TERFs think?
You’re looking at my analogy the wrong way. I’m saying that if a racist said they didn’t want to play with black people as they don’t see them as equal, we wouldn’t give them the time of day, so why do we give bigoted women the time of day because they refuse to accept transwomens gender?
if a racist said they didn’t want to play with black people
If the larger community proposed a restricted class for black people, we would still listen to black people about whether they thought it was a good idea, not the racists.
The previous commenters’ statement that we need to listen to the women in the women’s restricted participation class, with respect to rule changes for the women’s restricted class, is valid. I think you’ve jumped to a conclusion that women chess players would oppose including trans chess players, without a basis in fact. It’s not clear to me that proposed restrictions on trans participation are actually coming from women participants.
But if women players are concerned about the effect of including trans players (whatever effect that may be), clearly we should listen to them. The limited participation women’s class exists to serve the needs of the women in that class.
It’s more like a tiny minority of cis women think all trans people should be shot at dawn and they get all the press, and are the only ones permitted to be acknowledged as “true women” with rights and shit—ironically.
source, am woman who really doesn’t care where people piss and shit and thinks we can’t get evidence on whether trans people have advantages in sport or not unless we let them, y’know, do sport
I think similarly. If, as a previous commenter implied, the main concern is discomfort related to social mixing between men and women participants, then the vast majority of female chess players are probably fine with including transwomen. But it’s their restricted class and they should be full stakeholders in any decisions.
I think every sport has its own challenges regarding trans/intersex participation in restricted women’s classes, and it’s certainly not my role to tell women participating in those classes that they should accept participants with male genetics. I’m 100% behind social acceptance of trans identity, but athletic contests add a dimension that I am in no way qualified to comment on.
Nah, I don’t buy it. The assumption with this line of thinking is that trans women don’t inherently belong to that class of participation. The majority of a group (cis women) do not get to unilaterally decide who is/is not a part of the greater group (women).
If someone proposed a restricted class limited to PoC, it would be entirely appropriate to ask PoC what they think about the proposal.
But following this analogy through, you’re not asking all PoC. You’re asking the majority of the subset (for example, black participants) whether a minority of the subset (for example, Asian participants) should be allowed to participate or not.
In this case, the organizers of these tournaments are picking and choosing their own definitions for who qualify as “women” and listening only to those opinions. The decision is already made, and pointing to the remainder to justify the decision is working backwards from that conclusion.
The assumption with this line of thinking is that trans women don’t inherently belong to that class of participation
I don’t think it’s right to call it “an assumption”. By definition, a restricted competition class uses rules to establish who is allowed to participate. These rules are willfully and intentionally composed. When circumstances arise that make the rules ambiguous in some way, the participating community is called to clarify them.
This isn’t unique to women’s chess, it applies to any restricted class sport or competition.
But following this analogy through, you’re not asking all PoC. You’re asking the majority of the subset (for example, black participants) whether a minority of the subset (for example, Asian participants) should be allowed to participate or not.
To be clear, I am not in any sense telling the chess world, much less women players, how to set the rules for their restricted class of competition. I am saying that women chess players are stakeholders in the rules of women’s chess. Precisely how their input is to be converted into a decision is not in my scope of understanding, and it would be presumptuous of me to hazard a guess at how they prefer to operate women’s chess.
The decision is already made, and pointing to the remainder to justify the decision is working backwards
Agreed, and that was not my intent.
I genuinely don’t how or if women chess players were involved in this decision, I’m only responding to the assertion that asking “what cis women think about playing trans women” is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people. It paints current women players with a broad brush and disenfranchises them from the management of their own competition.
I’m only responding to the assertion that asking “what cis women think about playing trans women” is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people.
But I think this part is where the disconnect is happening. Before this decision, cis women and trans women were both components of women’s chess. The act of conferring with only a subset of that group implies that the other does not fall into that category. Relying only on the majority group’s opinion on the status of the minority group is itself an assumption that one of the groups inherently belongs less than the other.
The act of conferring with only a subset of that group
Cis women are stakeholders, I didn’t mean to imply that they are the only stakeholders That may be lack of clarity on my part. I definitely did not mean to suggest that ONLY cis women’s opinions matter, or should be considered in rulemaking.
I offered that as a counterpoint to the assertion that the opinion of cis women is morally equivalent to the opinion of racists.
Again, I don’t really know how or if women chess players (cis or trans) were solicited for their opinions on these rule changes.
I’ll argue that you only need to eat five rich. The first two will be shocking, the next two will be surprising that they were eaten despite all the security measures, the fifth being eaten is the reminder that the rich will be eaten.
You’ve taken care of like, 50% of the billionaires parasite issue with those 5, the remaining few will suddenly decide that social welfare programs are a good idea and donate so much that they are no longer billionaires.
The problem is it's just a phrase. You can keep repeating it ad nauseam, but unless it comes with actual strategies to complete a goal... it's as meaningless a phrase as all the rhetoric that right-wingers throw around. And they're much better at it.
I’d like to propose for maximum psychological impact they should be literally eaten using whatever gold plated dishware and diamond knives they’ve got laying around.
Eat the rich and more rich pop up. It takes more than just "let's get rid of who we think the sole problem is and everything will turn out fine". The rich didn't just appear from a vacuum, they've accumulated power and wealth for centuries, if not millennia. "Eating the rich" would require vastly more fundamental changes than just grabbing goods from the nearest billionaire and tossing at "the poors".
The problem is that value is derived from property rather than from work. You earn substantially more by owning a machine than by operating that machine, which rewards people who have money more than people who have skills.
Yes but their is not real answer to that. Even comunism where people own the means of production. Turns into a state where the leaders of that state make more money owning the machines then the workers on those machines.
Any system will always result in a cost to start the industry be it land in the past. Machines in the present or AI in the future. Those who have the resources to provide work for others will always have some form of power. And power will always lead to corruption.
All differing political stratagies do is change the process for gaining that power.
Humanity would probably have to eliminate psycho/sociopathic behavior. Something like 1% of humanity (much higher rate in billionaire and CEO populations, like 25%+).
Like you said, designing a system that prevents them from taking control without pretty draconian measures that are likely to catch many false positives (and still be evaded by skilled psycho/sociopaths) seems pretty difficult.
Maybe AI will be able to filter them out of the population, but that’s full of moral and ethical pitfalls too.
Turns into a state where the leaders of that state make more money owning the machines then the workers on those machines.
Except not really. Corruption is a problem but corruption happens in bourgeois democracy too, the overwhelmingly main source of wealth extraction that we can eliminate is surplus labor value extraction brought about by property relations. State socialism cuts away a massive problem while still retaining smaller ones.
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. www.nber.org/system/files/…/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) semanticscholar.org/…/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b…
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2…
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. www.nytimes.com/…/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
The answer is no, because of the fundamental differences in how Japan and China are run.
Japan is modeled off of a capitalist imperialist economy, similar to the US. And as such, it will stagnate and requires imperialism and increasing levels of exploitation to maintain its economy. It does not have the tools or methodology to develop further without imperialism. And thus, it stagnates.
Meanwhile, China is socialist. It uses dialectical materialism to solve social issues and promote cohesion. And instead of profit, it will seek to optimize material conditions, and identify the barriers to doing so, creating a strategy for development. Through Marxian economics, it understands that productivity comes through cooperation and labour, and not profit. Optimization can be performed throughout the supply chain through central planning.
China runs under C—>M—>C, while Japan runs under M—>C—>M.
China does have problems but it also has the tools to solve them, instead of just sweeping it under the rug.
It’s pretty hilarious how I posted sourced information that made you really mad, but since you had no actual counter point to make you just proceeded to expose yourself as a clown by regurgitating personal attacks you’ve memorized. A great way to tell us all that you’re really mad, but too dumb to say anything intelligible on the subject. 😂
The fact that you took the time to write this drivel is pretty hilarious. It’s nice to know that my posts really get under the skin of people like you.
You keep on replying with your childish personal attacks on me here, so clearly you do care. Good of you to expose yourself as an angry loser who attacks random people on the internet. That’s all you are.
I do care that someone might get roped in to your weird agenda and I feel it’s necessary to call you out as the shill you are.
If you had balanced arguments it would be different, but you’re very black and white in your support of China and hatred of the west. When challenged you go straight to “seethe and cope” catchphrase. You don’t have discussions in good faith so there’s no point in discussing with you and nothing you say should be taken at face value.
The only one who isn’t having a discussion in good faith is the one who just follows me around and makes personal attacks because you’re upset with the what I’m saying. Thanks for finally admitting that you really are bothered by what I say loser.
Following you around? Lol you really think you’re that interesting? You post about how great China is every where you go. I don’t need to follow you. Any time I see a pro-China post and/or the words “seethe and cope” it’s you. You’re boring and predictable. Get a life man.
I post about a lot of things, but all you appear to focus on is when I talk about China because seeing positive news about China gets under your skin. You keep telling me to get a life, but here you are making another vapid comment because you just can’t help yourself. The fact that you don’t even realize what a pathetic loser you are is really the cherry on top. Nobody in this thread agrees with you, and your drivel has been downvoted into oblivion here. Take a hint.
LMFAO thanks for letting us know that you don’t even understand how federation works. Go look at what this thread looks like outside your loser instance lemmy.ml/comment/5801787
It’s quite the irony that the guy who posts from an instance that blocks half of lemmyverse talks about people being disconnected from reality. 😂
I don’t get paid to sit on Lemmy all day shilling for China. I’m not too worried about how it all works or how many alt accounts you have downvoting me.
What you should be worried is your mental health buddy. The fact that you spent days harassing a stranger on the internet because you disagree with their politics shows that you’re a deeply troubled individual. I really do feel sorry for you and sincerely hope that you get the help you clearly need.
Why so fragile? All of you liberals are the exact same, you can’t comprehend that the majority of the world doesn’t share your brainless politics so you have a meltdown when your zero-thought analysis doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. No one respects your ideas because you can’t back them up in any sense. You don’t even know where your own ideas come from.
When pressed to explain your viewpoint instead of putting forward anything all you have are personal attacks. You accuse others of being paid to voice these ideas because your pathetic capitalist ideology projects it’s insecurities onto it’s opponents as a defense mechanism. Your ideology is so insecure you believe that big scary dictators are paying people $5 a day to fuck with you on the internet. What kind of schizophrenic hellworld do you live in? You live in a solipsistic echo chamber you constructed to cope with the scary things they show you on the news. Live in the real world with the rest of us when you’re ready.
Seriously. How much do you get paid for shilling China so hard?
Dude, you endlessly post about how awesome China is.
When a communist with a politically-oriented account who posts on communist communities of communist instances makes primarily posts in support of communism and communist countries (any explanation for his motives is beyond the comprehension of the limited and finite human mind, he must have been paid by someone to post that comment):
There’s nothing to call him out on. All that you dronie losers say is “how dare you say a country that I don’t like is good with sources, you’re not allowed to do that!”
“why are we talking about the communist party of china under an article about how the bourgeoisie continues to accumulate wealth to the detriment of the proletariat?”
At all levels of government we’re (worldwide) making due with less while these fucking parasites grow.
So Yogthos provides a counterpoint where a government is investing in the lower rungs of the society instead of squeezing them. If you want to dispute the mentioned facts it’s one thing but the comment is still relevant and not out-of-nowhere China shilling.
This thread is about a dude in Ireland. It has nothing to do with China.
“why are we talking about the communist party of china under an article about how the bourgeoisie continues to accumulate wealth to the detriment of the proletariat?”
The thing is that the comment rings true about the other AES countries also. OP (of the thread, not the post) has identified a problem, and the commies are suggesting a solution to the problem, with statistics that prove it to be viable. You’re dismissing the solution as off-topic, but it’s very relevant. The thread is directly relevant to the article, and the reply is directly relevant to the thread.
Say what you want about the west, but China isn’t what the world should be either.
But it is. In lieu of something better, we should all be like China.
I read The Second Sex twenty fucking years ago. It was written over 70 years ago.
Like, they keep acting like gender is performative is a new idea when it’s absolutely old as living fuck at this point.
How long do we keep giving them to accept that this is clearly true and has value as a way to discuss a variety of subjects, from social expectations of what cisgender women are “supposed to look like” to why gender and biological sex are different things (on top of biological sex being a lot more vague than conservatives tend to think. protip: intersex people exist!)?
How long do they get to hide behind “It was a different world back then” when books written about this very subject come from that ancient fucking world they’re always referencing for why they’re such bigoted fucking shitheels.
They shouldn’t get to hide behind “it was a different world back then” when a number of us who are older than this dipshit are familiar with these ideas already because these ideas existed before we were fucking born.
Maybe their stupid asses should have picked up and read a fucking book (that wasn’t Mein Kampf) in seventy fucking years.
Anyway, it is sickening and ridiculous this far into the future this is still being discussed like its a controversial issue and not clearly fucking painfully obviously the reality of the situation.
Time, research, facts, priority, urgency… None of it means anything to them. They quote texts that are nearly 80 years old as if it’s modern science while calling laws and programs programs that are 60 years old outdated, even though they’re meant to hopefully level the playing field for people who were heavily abused for hundreds of years and now are only medium-abused.
Commenters keep talking about stopped clocks being right twice a day, but they’re worse than that. These aren’t stopped clocks, these are creepy old dudes jerking off in the corner and they happen to own a watch.
Someone asks them, “hey Steve wants to know what time it is,” and they respond, “SHOW ME STEVE’S GENITALS! EW! Got anything younger?”
Reactionaries and fascists usually seek to “return” to a mythologized version of the past that never truly existed. This is exactly what makes them so radical and dangerous.
What's crazy is we're talking about 1% of the population. All of this insanity over letting one out of a hundred people do something that harms nobody else. As if there's no other problems in the world.
Oh no, its a clear reference to the blind eye the west & the world has turned to the ongoing genocide of Muslims & Christians in India by Modi govt & the Hindu supremacist thugs it supports.
A valid point but the emphasis in the statement is that it is an “explosive charge” this week. Those murders have been going on for decades. This is about the change in the audacity of these crimes.
It’s very hard to care when religious people kill each other. They are clinically insane due to trauma from abuse in their childhood and are very unlikely to recover. The best we can do is to protect children from these evil cults.
And then someone gets in that decides that “competency” means whatever they want it to mean, and enough of their party mates run with it, and before you know it we’re back to shit like this:
Fox News and Russian/CCP media use the same double talk, enemy at the gates, boogie man bad speak. Supporting Russian aggression in Ukraine or Chinese aggression in Taiwan is the as supporting American agression in the middle east. It all has the same stink.
Lol, I went to high school in the years after 911 and had trash thrown at me and had to have a meeting with the principal when I stopped saluting the flag. I felt like everyone lost their minds and were replaced by pod people. If you’re going to make personal attacks, take a bit of time to check the comment history of who you’re insulating. I’ve never once simped for America.
Something to consider about western propaganda is that it has many mouths saying the same thing. If fucks news and similar cranks were the only ones peddling the China bad shit, you would see more division along the kayfabe lines between the demonrats and the rethuglicans.
Yes, they moved there and committed ethnic cleansing against the indigenous people of the island. They looted China, lost the civil war and then killed natives when they fled to Taipei.
Go back to sucking Winnie the Pooh’s cock. Too bad he’s too scared to ever actually do anything. He knows that he’s just a little dictator that can only impress or oppress his own people. It would be funny to see how hard you fail, just like you did the last time you decided to pick a fight with your neighbor, Vietnam.
No racism there. I can not be racist against my own family member, which you are. You just wanna wave that card because you think it will work. That was pure anti-CCCP sentiment because your entire dictatorship is nothing more than a paper tiger, just like the other wannabe superpower, Ruzzia. You’re an authoritarian dictatorship, the US is imperialistic, the Ruzzians are fascists. Of the three the only one that is even worth negotiating with is the US, because at least they will pay lip service to their people, unlike the genocidal CCCP and Moscow.
China was nothing but a bully to their neighbors for 4500 years and you want to claim that you aren’t a wannabe bully because you got your face smashed in 50 years ago by Vietnam, and you haven’t dared to try since? Get out of here with that shit. You aren’t communist. You aren’t capitalist. You’re still Han bullys, and just waiting to genocide everyone that isn’t. Just ask the Uigers.
The difference now is that the rest of the world won’t let you, and you’re scared of trying because you fell as a power over 100 years ago, have never caught up, and though you tried hard your leaders ensured you’ll never surpass the US. You got close. That one child policy really bit you guys in the ass.
Your comment is literally filled with racist comments agaisnt Chinese people to the brim. I guess that makes sense as it seems you have a history of racist remarks. CCCP? Haha, it seems you don’t know the name nor can you write
So let me get this straight, a group of people overwhelmingly wish to separate, and the government tries to prevent them from doing that, and you don’t think that’s imperialism? I bet you don’t feel the same about separatism in Catalonia, Donbas, Kurdistan, or the Zapatistas. Classic tankie logic: imperialism good when done by purported “communists.”
Muddied? There’s this thing called “nuance.” I support Donbas independence, I simply don’t think it gives Russia the right to invade anywhere outside of Donbas, is that that complicated to understand?
So let me get this straight: if the US/Canada were hostile with each other, and the people of Alberta, Canada, were separatists that allied themselves with the US, but the Canadian government refused to recognize Alberta’s sovereignty, you would support a full-scale, deadly American invasion of Canada?
To be clear, to be a true analog the province needs to be an ethnic minority which is being targeted by the national government.
Say Alberta was the only majority English speaking province, and Ottawa started putting up statues of a Quebecois terrorist leader from 80 years ago who lead the massacre of 100k English speakers and allied with Hitler during WW2, then they announced that English would be banned from all government facilities including primary schools, and when Alberta tried to secede they sent Nazi paramilitary death squads to harass them and started bombing them daily.
At that point, if the US interceded and went past the Albertan border to attack other military targets in Canada, you would consider that a war of aggression by America against Canada and not them defending their ally, Alberta?
At that point, if the US interceded and went past the Albertan border to attack other military targets in Canada, you would consider that a war of aggression by America against Canada and not them defending their ally, Alberta?
If America’s massacring civilians in Ottawa and Toronto? Yes, of course I would. Any sane person would. Stay in Alberta.
You people call yourselves anti-war? I think you’re the real liberals here.
Sounds like you’re the one who’s pro-war whenever it’s convenient for you. When it’s not convenient, you just say “that’s different!” And refuse to elaborate.
How did Russia invade the Donbas by putting troops in it after being invited? Please admit that the answer is that you actually believe the Donbas is Ukraine and don’t care about its people’s self determination so I can quit asking you this question that you have been dodging for like an hour now.
If I considered it justified for the US to enter the war on the side of the separatists, I would absolutely say that it is then justified for the US to invade Canada proper.
When 99.9% of people who unironically use the word tankie, and think that ‘fascist’ means ‘anything I don’t like’, also fiercely oppose Donbas independence, and when the one I’m talking to is also refusing to just give a clear answer, I’m not about to say I’m in the wrong for asking some clarifying questions.
Also, why doesn’t it give Russia the right to invade? Was it wrong for the allies to invade Germany proper during WW2?
when the one I’m talking to is also refusing to just give a clear answer
I very clearly said I supported their independence, but okay.
Also, why doesn’t it give Russia the right to invade?
So let me get this straight, you support civilians being massacred and innocent lives being lost? You really think Ukraine is on the same level of Nazi fucking Germany? Honestly I wouldn’t even much of a problem if they just invaded Donbas but they’re invading the whole fucking country and causing so much death and destruction. How is that justified? How can you call yourself anti-war and anti-imperialism and justify a brutal invasion? Some true colors being shown…
I very clearly said I supported their independence, but okay.
But you are clearly being deceitful, just in this comment you basically admit that you don’t actually support their independence.
Look:
Honestly I wouldn’t even much of a problem if they just invaded Donbas
The DPR and LPR invited Russia. How could they have “just invaded Donbas.”
Please explain
A) The Donbas isn’t really independent and you consider it Ukrainian property. **(Surely not, you insist that this isn’t the case)**B) You consider soldiers who are in a foreign country to be invaders regardless of the relationship of the two states? **(Can’t be this or the US is invading half the planet right this second, including Taiwan)**C) ???
Please enlighten us.
This isn’t even getting into the point that multiple people made that you’ve ignored for half an hour, that once you’re in a war with someone who wants to conquer you, sending your soldiers into their territory isn’t an act of aggression, otherwise the US and the Soviets aggressed against the Nazis, which only an actual Nazi would claim.
(To be clear, I don’t think you’re a Nazi, just an intellectually dishonest liberal).
you support civilians being massacred and innocent lives being lost?
no, this was why the people’s republics of donetsk and luhansk invited military aid, and was the cause behind the Minsk agreements as well as Russia recognizing the Donbas republics
Wait, do you support Donbas self rule or not? Are they not allowed to invite their ally (Russia) to support them militarily in a war of aggression by their neighbor, Ukraine?
I think all regions deserve self-autonomy determined by democratic referendums, unlike the tankies that think the Republic of China should be re-annexed…
That’s good, so do I. But there are other people, people wearing totenkopfs and firing mortars into town squares full of people they call cockroaches for the language they speak, who feel quite differently than us. What is your solution to this, so that peace and democracy can prevail?
Idk, not my place to say. Your solution to oppression of a minority group in one province is full scale war and mass murders of tens of thousands of civilians? Holy shit you guys are warmongerers, America should be paying you! Guarantee you wouldn’t feel the same if America was Russia and Ukraine/Donbas were countries in the Global South in this case tho.
It doesn’t seem like you do given you referred to the current war as an invasion by Russia and Ukraine has been shelling it’s neighbors the LPR and DPR for nearly a decade.
Can you clarify why Russia shouldn’t be involved in the war between Ukraine and its smaller neighbors?
The Civil War was imperialism but it was good imperialism. Fascist breakaways are a bit different: the Union taking over the South was infringing on their self-governance, but that’s a good thing, Confederates were pure evil. It’s like after WWII and Axis powers became occupied, could you technically call that colonialism? Maybe, but they needed to be.
If Taiwan was blatantly fascistic, genocidal, had slavery, etc. I would support China colonizing them… but they aren’t. They’re neoliberal (much like China), which is lame, but they’re not a Nazi state. Remind me, who was the first in Asia to legalize gay marriage?
And are they a military dictatorship today? Even when they were, they weren’t a threat to world peace or humanity like the Confederacy or the Japanese Empire. By that logic do you think the US military should intervene in African military dictatorships?
The KMT was certainly a threat to Formosans, and to leftists living in the island they’d seized.
If the Confederacy had survived the war as rump state in Southern Florida and continued to claim to rule the entire US South and in the mid nineties claimed to be a democracy and then finally elected a non-military president in the aughts, would you call the US imperialist for not recognizing the Confederacy?
Okay, that’s consistent. Given that the modern incarnation of Taiwan was founded as a fascistic & genocidal settler colony, what was the timepoint at which a decisive end to the Chinese Civil War shifted from acceptable to unacceptable in your eyes?
Almost like the reason some of the population is because they stole from the Chinese people and fled to the island when the people fought back. The oppressor doesn’t deserve to get to pick to be independent
I bet you don’t feel the same about separatism in Catalonia, Donbas, Kurdistan, or the Zapatistas.
Literally none of those are imperialism. Imperialism isn’t having a region want independence. Do you think Scotland not being allowed to have a vote is imperialism?
this is just not true. the overwhelming majority want a return to the status quo, a status quo that was very consistently gravitating towards china before the US decided to stir shit using its DPP puppets. the taiwanese people are perfectly capable of understanding which side their bread is buttered on and that their families cannot subsist on a diet of freedom and democracy.
If you actually read it you would know the vast majority either want to keep the self-governance or become fully independent (50%). Both of those are some form of separatism, even if most of them don’t want anything radical that could trigger a war.
jfc, points for trying to turn this into a semantics game but sorry, fuck you
lets look at bbc, first result we get when we search "台独民意调查“ on google.hk because apparently google.tw is too spicy for google’s techbro commissariat. whatever, close enough:
even tries to reframe it by breaking up de facto status quo supporters into two camps but plurality still supports status quo
how about cn language natopedia
2020, NCCU (same as the bbc study):
“尽快独立”占7.4%
“偏向独立”占27.7%，为历年最高
“永远维持现状”占23.6%
“维持现状再决定”的民众比例持续下降至28.7%
“尽快统一”占0.7%创下新低
2021, united news:
“尽快独立”占18%
“维持现况再独立”占16%
“永远维持现状”占51%
“维持现状再统一”占6%
“尽快统一”占4%
“无意见”占3%
2022, ‘taiwanese public opinion foundation’ (read: cia cutout):
“坚持台湾独立”占27.3%
“赞成但不坚持台湾独立”占22.8%
“维持现状但偏台湾独立”占11.3%
“永远维持现状”占8.4%
“维持现状但偏两岸统一”占6.0%
“赞成但不坚持两岸统一”占9.4%
“坚持两岸统一”占2.4%
look at how they progressively split the status quo category (the size of which does not demonstrably change) into smaller and smaller demos to try and push an agenda
let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and more closely examine what is obviously the most compromised source here. this is the cia cutout’s (shitty and completely unprofessional) paper from this year. they’d probably lose funding if they put something as damning as actual independence vs status quo numbers out there so they decided to go with plausibly deniable second order opinion sets and STILL get blown the fuck out
just take the L dude, taiwanese are completely cognizant of the fact they’re being primed to be the next ukraine and most of them understandably want no part of that
No it isn’t. The status quo is that Taiwan is a region of China, independently governed. This is the case for MANY places around the world, here in the UK for example we have Scottish and Welsh governments, independent of the UK government. Scotland has its own parliament. Does that make it independent? Fuck no it doesn’t and there’s no mechanism for it to leave either.
There are MORE people in Scotland that want Scottish independence than Taiwan. Chew on that for a bit.
This is semantics. You’re playing with the difference between independent as a country and independent in governance, two different things. You’re not participating in good faith, as per usual.
No it fucking doesn’t, because that’s what it is right fucking now. You can’t be a “separatist” if you already have that. You’re just a status quo-ist.
Fuck me talking to nazis hurts, you’re all unbelievably uneducated.
This is horrifying. This is fascism. Teach them an alternate reality from birth. Gotta make sure those white kids keep feeling special. Gotta make sure the black kids know they were better off enslaved. Perfect. Our country is soooooo fucked.
To be fair, there’s alternate history that was being taught in schools prior to this (I haven’t looked into the prageru program, so I’m not sure what they teach that’s alt history yet). But the 1619 project is a good example of alternate history that was/is being pushed and taught at schools.
Where is it being taught in school? I think Trump and DeSantis banning it being taught in school is just a publicity stunt claiming the woke left is rewriting history.
Alternative history is taught all the time everywhere. I was shocked when I worked in a school to hear the teacher telling kids about Columbus “discovering” America. When in reality he was put on a pedestal in response to anger against Italian immigrants. They needed a national hero to be treated better. You know, because they were not white.
…maybe there is a connection point of everything we don’t teach…
I am sure incorrect history is being taught in many places but I was talking about the 1619 project being taught in schools. It just seems like a manufactured political outrage.
Ah yes, well-researched history about topics that make white conservatives uncomfortable. That “alternate history”? What do you think is false in the 1619 project? I’m curious.
1776 is when America started. In 1619 there was no America the country, it was brittish colonies. 1619 wasn’t even the first African slaves to step foot on the North American continent, they were just the first to arrive to one specific colony in Verginia.
I see. This is the level of understanding we’re dealing with.
I know all that. That’s why a said as a country, not a nation-state; to differentiate between national culture and government It was the nation-state that started in 1789. I’m not wasting any more time arguing with you. It’s clear we won’t understand each other.
Or maybe fascists are just transphobic bigots who want to torture and kill trans people because, well, they're fascists, it's what they do?
You need to understand the far right doesn't give a damn about economic issues. Not one crap. (Because most far-right supporters are middle-class or higher, for the record!) They want power for one reason, and one reason only: to lord it over the minorities they consider their inferiors, if not outright killing them.
This isn't a "distraction", it's the fucking goal.
Why not both? Far right movements, at least as far back as the transition of the Tories into the conservative party in the early 1800s, have been lead by the interests of the ultra rich. Far right “philosophy” has always been to their service, whether its regressive “economics” of Malthus or the complete fiction of scientific racism. Almost definitionally, there isn’t a far right movement without a ruling class that it supports and is supported by; that’s what they are trying to “conserve”.
Part of this is having a permanent underclass. Or more than one. Just as the “middle class” is under the ruling class, the under class must be beneath them. This is part of the conservative mindset, which again is created and nurtured by the ruling class for this purpose. The difference between garden variety conservatives and fascists, in this regard, is simply that fascists want the elimination of the permanent underclass.
Fair enough. I just get pissed when people like OP suggest bigotry only exists because Economically Anxious^TM people are being manipulated by The Elites^TM. Anyone who's interacted with well-off people for longer than a few minutes knows being economically secure doesn't magically make you not a bigot anymore.
And I hate the implication bigotry is somehow "less important" an issue than economic inequality. Especially since the two are so intimately intertwined, especially in the US, it's impossible to make progress tackling one without tackling the other.
I’m not LGBT or anything so I do have a bias, this is mostly something I observed from my time with the upper-middle class. Up until maybe 2014, while these people were far from saints, they seemed to be far more passive about social issues beyond the economics. Then the misinformation age hit and their opinions went from ‘I don’t want to pay the medical expenses of the poor’ to ‘I don’t want to pay for someone’s gender reassignment surgery’. The bigotry seemed to be at the forefront once the billionaire controlled media told them it should be. While yes I’m sure there’s a lot of pure bigotry, I’d expect there to be less if billionaires weren’t around to sway.
This is just a chicken and egg situation on the cause so sorry if I was underplaying the bigotry aspect.
I guarantee these people were absolutely as shitty about LGBTQ+ issues before 2015, they just talked about them less frequenly around you since they didn't have to think about gay people too often. But I guarantee they were just as horrible towards gay people back then-- if not moreso, since they thought they could get away with the toxicity since no one cared-- as they are today.
Source: was woman with a ton of LGBTQ+ friends before 2014. Bigotry hasn't gotten any worse since then, just louder. (And the good news is the reason the bigots have gotten louder is because more normies are becoming tolerant or accepting of LGBTQ+ people, causing the remaining bigots to realize they're losing control of society and flip the hell out!)
Obviously illegal. Collective punishment is a war crime and makes Israel a monster. Imagine if there was a murderer in your building and the feds blew the entire building up.
Imagine there was a murderer in your building. But he is not really interested in murdering you, he keeps shooting at some other people you also hate. The feds have tried to go into the building to extract the murderer, but his friends and you lynched the feds when they tried. The murderer has stockpiled his guns in the building and the feds figure that if they can’t get to the murderer at least they can destroy his guns and vantage point from which he is firing at people. They don’t really want to destroy the building but the murderer is actively trying to kill people and the people he is trying to kill demands action.
You receive a text message that the building you are in will be destroyed shortly. You want to leave, but now the murderer says he will kill you if you do.
It is a very silly thing to think that having a “civilian” stay in a legitimate military target ( rocket launcher and or rocket storage ) makes it a place that is untouchable!
Are you telling me there are people being told their building will be blown up who leave the building to go stand just a few meters away on the street it sits on?
Not excatly like that. They were told to evacuate to a particular place were they will be secure because supposedly Isael wouldn’t strike… and then, they strike that place anyway.
There is no helping the clowns in this forum. They’re lost and don’t understand the costs of living in a terrorist society. There has been billions spend on providing aid, proving avenues, providing resources to the gaza strip.
Hmmm let’s stay on topic. I didn’t say I support collective punishment of Palestine or anyone. I said missiles aren’t the same thing as border restrictions, because they clearly aren’t. Do you actually disagree?
Something tells me you still are not getting the point about collective punishment. But hey, you won’t be the first person who can’t see the hypocrisy in all of us.
Starving people to death via a siege and not allowing passport holders to visit are worlds apart.
Aside from that, it would be a violation of sovereignty to say which countries other countries had to allow in. Countries can and do block passports all the time.
Please, by all means, inform the class what “collective punishments” Russian Citizens are currently facing that are directly equivalent to what Israel is doing.
Collective punishment IS a war crime. Travel is a privelege, not being able to go on holiday to specific places isn’t punishment. Do you realise most countries aren’t permitted to travel somewhere?
This is not valid in all cases as I know multiple Russians and those living in EU continue to do so with no issue and those living in RU say it doesn’t affect them. You can even find interview with random RU citizens in RU and they all say it doesn’t affect them or that they want to attack UA BC Nato boarder is too close.
I’m ststating that Russians don’t seem to be directly afected aside from having their favorite EU vacation destinations accessible via France or Turkey instead directly from Moscow. It means that so called collective punishment was either ineffective or so mild, that it had almost no effect on dayly lives of citizens.
You compare this with bombing city, being cut out of water, food, medicine and energy.
If anything, Russians collectively punished Ukrainians by shelling,detroying their energy and tradic infrastructure to make winter as bad as possible for UA.
For those who don't get this, 'Laïcité' is what the French call the secularism which is part of their constitution.
Plenty are as serious about it, as many in the US are about free speech or the right to own a gun.
Obviously this is also in part a more recent phenomenon. France has a large Muslim population and laïcité is arguably interpreted more strictly by those who wish to combat the influence of Islam on French mainstream culture.
In Quebec we usually have to explain the difference between secularism and laïcité by mentioning that secularism is the separation of church and State by accommodating all religions equally while laïcité is the separation of church and State by excluding religion from the public domain. Quebec’s take on laïcité is more relaxed than France’s.
That’s just hypocrisy here. The building is used for religious ceremonies. There’s nothing more religious than this church.
Now mind you I’m not against rebuilding it, because I’m not an anti religion zealot. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of hunting Muslims out of schools in the name of laicity while rebuilding a church with state money.
Although it seems to be something that can apply to any religious buildings and especially the ones built before the law on laïcité came into effect (kind of a grandfather clause)… It could be argued that at this point they have an historical value that more recent buildings don’t have…
Absolutely. But incidentally most religious buildings dating from before 1905 are catholic or protestant. So this is not neutral. And some of those buildings have no real historical value per se, at least not any more than any other random building from that era.
I don’t think it’s not neutral just because historically buildings of other religions didn’t get built… The proof that it’s neutral is that even for the pre-1905 non christian buildings the same law is applied instead of only paying for buildings of the majority’s religion. Financing newer non-christian buildings to reach some kind of equilibrium wouldn’t be neutral and would go against the spirit of laïcité… The older buildings have a patrimonial value as they’re a representation of France’s values before 1905…
We should not kid ourselves: this is, as you said yourself, a grandfather clause. This was meant to slightly appease religious people post 1905. The historical value argument is, in most case, rather moot. Plenty of non religious buildings are older and have arguably more cultural value and yet are not maintained with public money.
Besides, the spirit of laïcité is being completely subverted lately. I mean, on the one hand we hear discourse such as is quoted in this article, and on the other our president is still chanoine de Latran. You’d think such staunch defenders of the separation between church and state would take issue with holding a clergy title…
As an addendum, one should keep in mind that in 2017 Macron ran on a platform that heavily criticized the left’s “obsession with laïcité”. What is happening today is pure unadulterated opportunism.
That’s Quebec’s take, government employees in a position of authority (including teachers) can’t wear religious signs, the rest is free to do what they want (unlike France’s version where students can’t wear religious signs either).
I think what’s so annoying about these laws is that they go à contresens, by strengthening religion in civic life. These girls are now forced to go to religious schools if they want to continue wearing their harmless cultural dress. In fact, religious schools have exploded in population since the laws on laïcité have passed in France. Many of those girls would have otherwise integrated into French society and become bored of religion, just like Catholic children do, if they went to a normal school. I remember listening to a French philosopher on a debate program say “Seuls les pays qui ont interdit le port du voile ont fini par l’imposer”. I don’t know if that’s literally true, but I think banning makes many muslims feel defiant and more passionate about their religious identity.
It’s especially galling in Canada, which has one of the most well-integrated and moderate Muslim minority populations in the world. A law like this is actively harmful to the goal of lessening “la pertinence de la religion dans la vie civile”. It goes against its own goals, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Since you’re mentioning Canada, at the same time in Quebec (the only place with a similar law) it’s only for government employees in a position of authority so I don’t think it’s really an issue considering we already impose restrictions on the same employees when it comes to displaying political signs and it received support from many people that are part of the groups most affected because they don’t want to have left a country where religion is part of politics only to go live somewhere where it’s trying to do the same thing. Creating a barrier between the two where we say “If your religion is so important to you that you can’t accept to remove the sign you’re wearing while at work, it might mean you are not ready to represent a laïc State” isn’t a bad thing. I wouldn’t support a ban for students or all government employees and so on (like France is doing).
I’ve heard this argument that it’s “not so bad” in Quebec, but I don’t know why we need to accept any “badness” at all. What countervailing benefit justifies the cost? Students will not convert to Sikhism or Islam because they’re taught by a Sikh or Muslim teacher. It’s a non-issue.
Contrary to what you say, the affected groups are far from supportive. In fact, I would not be surprised one bit if, like in France, Muslims in Quebec have hardened their views, becoming more devout, in response to la loi 21.
I said it’s not an issue and that it’s not a bad thing, not that it’s “not so bad” and that we’re tolerating “badness”.
It’s not about conversion, it’s about discrimination or the appearance of discrimination by an employee of the State.
How does a Jewish defendant feel when a judge that’s visibly Muslim makes a decision against them? Well that judge represents the State and the State needs to be neutral and to have the appearance of neutrality in front of the people it has authority over.
And again, that judge couldn’t have a hammer and sickle pin on their robe even though the freedom of political opinion and of expressing it is as protected as the freedom of religious expression. Can you imagine a visibly communist judge making a decision against a private business suing the government? Yeah, that wouldn’t fly.
How does a non-white defendant feel when a visibly white judge, which are most judges, makes a decision against them? Or a man rules against a woman who is a rape victim? Such things happen all the time. People seem perfectly happy with state representatives being white, without quotas or positive discrimination to improve diversity. Why all this concern for “social justice” only when it comes to these minority religions?
Do you really think there is no “badness” at all… for anyone? Some people have had to make a difficult decision between career and identity. You might be blasé about that decision, but for some people it would be as difficult as being forbidden from speaking your native language, or forbidden from being openly gay.
The difference here is that skin color and gender aren’t a choice, whereas wearing a religious sign, just like wearing a sign of your political allegiance, is a choice.
Unless you tell me that wearing a kippah isn’t a choice for the wearer, which would be in direct violation of our charter or rights and freedom…
The people concerned also get affected if their religious sign can’t be worn because of uniforms, they don’t go and sue employers that tell them they can’t wear a safety hat over a turban or that they can’t drive a transport van while wearing a burqa that hinders their view. If their sign is so important that they can’t satisfy the criterias for the job they just go work in another field and that’s it.
The State doesn’t have to guarantee access to jobs to people who don’t fit the criterias for the job, including the responsibility to appear neutral. The perfect State employee in a position of authority would be a robot that looks nothing like a human with a gender neutral voice, since we can’t have that we’re stuck telling people that they need to adopt a neutral appearance to work certain jobs or they can go do the equivalent job in the private sector if it exists or they can take other tasks which don’t put them in a position of authority, including some very good jobs for the State!
All other religious symbols are also banned (in schools), so this argument seems pretty weak. One can agree or disagree, but considering religion a private matter that should stay out of the public buildings is a perfectly legitimate stance, in my opinion.
No one ever was removed from school for wearing a Christian cross.
Banning religion from public space is actually against the French constitution, and it’s not a fair fight against religion, it’s racism against Muslim.
Christian crosses are actually forbidden in French school (from what I read). I don’t know if anybody ever got removed from school from it, but the rule is there. I can’t talk on what is against or not French constitution as I am not qualified to do so (not even for my own country), but I trust that if that’s the case, courts will determine that.
A final remark, being Muslim is a choice, is not a birth condition nor a race (or ethnicity). This means that at most you can talk of religious discrimination, not racism. Coincidentally religious discrimination is very common in very religious countries (including Muslim countries), both towards other religions and even more against atheists or apostates.
No. The crosses banned are the big ones that the teacher would put on the wall. People are free to wear any pendant they like.
The teacher need to not show any religious sign because it represent the state.
Forbidding people to dress how they like or even show that they have a religion is fascism. It’s like forbidding same sex couple to show that they love eachother.
And I can’t care less about Muslim theocracies, they are fascists and that is the problem. What I care about is that France is becoming fascist too, and I am ashamed of it. Becoming fascist to fight fascism is an irony that doesn’t make it better.
Accprding to …wikipedia.org/…/French_law_on_secularity_and_con… you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn’t call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.
The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.
What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.
The school did not ban children though, nor because of their religion.
The school complied with a law that forbids religious symbols/garments. Also the children were not banned, were asked to wear something else and most did.
Muslim children are perfectly able to attend school, provided that they do so without visible religious symbols, exactly like everyone else.
“We” actually told everyone what NOT to dress, because some dresses are actually not (only) garments but religious symbols. Again, if you use this argument I will play the devil’s advocate and support people going in KKK uniform to school. Wouldn’t we want to tell boys how to dress, no? Or a good ol’ SS uniform.
Clothes sometimes are more than pieces of cloth we cover ourselves with, and some of them have religious value, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can argue that for you schools should NOT be a neutral space (regarding religion), but you can’t make up argument such as religious clothing being worn for modesty.
Except it’s not a religious dress. It’s a cultural marker. But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society.
Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?
When this whole thing is a strawman from the government to avoid talking about the terrible state of the school, I find it funny that you’re talking about strawman. Especially to dismiss legitimate comparisons.
Your comparisons are strawman arguments because they are argument nobody (definitely not me) made, which you are using to try to deligitimize other arguments that you can’t challenge (apparently), by somehow pretending that your strawman and my arguments are similar.
Talk about the poor state of French schools if you wish, it is an important topic, but this doesn’t make religious garments less religious. Your argument was that these are cultural markers, and NOT religious symbols, which is a pretty easy claim to debunk with a quick research on why those garments exist, who wears them, what they represent, etc.
Do you know what a strawman is? You don’t seem to know.
The strawman is the abaya because it’s a non issue that the government is advertising to make it the political subject of the return to class period, that in order not to talk about the actual issues. That is what a strawman is: an argument to deviate the discussion. It has nothing to do with a comparison.
A comparison helps to understand an argument, or make parallels to make the reasoning more robust.
This lecture was free. You can try an actual argument now rather than trying sophisms like a troll.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
Not sure what your “lesson” was referring to, but your old comment is exactly the definition of a strawman.
Let me remind it to you:
But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society. Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?
Nobody made any argument about making all muslims like fanatical terrorists, nobody mentioned anything about metal heads (we were talking about religion), but you wanted to use the refusal of these ridiculous made-up arguments because you couldn’t anymore defend your main thesis (I assume), which is “Except it’s not a religious dress.”.
So your “comparisons” are strawman because they have nothing to do with the other comparison term.
This said, I argued my way to every comment, you moved the goalpost 10000km now, moving from “they are not religious dresses” to “the whole topic is a strategy from the government to distract from…” (which might also be true, but it’s completely unrelated as we are already discussing of this particular subject), and now you call me names for the sake of using basic logic in my conversation. Well, this lesson is free as well, it’s called learn to fucking discuss like an adult. I am blocking you in the meanwhile because it’s now obvious that you have absolutely no argument and you argue in bad faith as well.
Being prevented from engaging in a social dynamic with your peers is a bit different from being forced to engage in a social dynamic, I'm going to consider uniforms the lesser evil.
While the school institution should absolutely avoid anything that has to do with religion, the students are still private entities. Taking away their freedom to express themselves in any way is one of the worst things to do to a young person and will only have the opposite effect.
Twist or turn it as you want, this law is just racism they wrapped up nicely.
I believe there are a huge number of ways we want to avoid young people express themselves in school. I am thinking for example about Nazi simbols, but the examples are countless. It’s just that according to you religion is not “one of those things”. I bet you wouldn’t defend someone to express himself by coming to school in full KKK outfit in the same way, would you?
Also, given the fact that the law applies to everyone, I don’t find it racist, and not even discriminatory. Again, Muslim people are disproportionally affected just because Islam has many of such symbols and garments, not because the law targets them specifically.Christians’s veils are banned as well (like the one nuns wear),the difference is that only few people in specific contexts wear them.
Its funny that Islamists use the term “Islamophobia” considering they teach an homophobic culture themselves. Dont ask for tolerance if you are not willing to be tolerant yourself.
The logo has been very successful in branding the company, as well as the companion verb "tweet". I think a company has reached peak when its name or something connected is used as an action verb. If he had taken over McDs he'd be tossing out the arches and even Big Mac with claims that they are the problem.
Twitter may have not been in great shape financially when he took over, but at least it had somewhat of an image. Musk is the contractor you called to fix a leak in the roof, and he burns the house down. He fixed the leak alright.
As said, Ronald disappeared a while ago for other reasons, but along with that McD became more of a "modern" look and got away from catering to the family at a kid's level. They still changed successfully. My point was that Musk would throw everything out and do something totally not designed to bring people to eat there, and then blame everyone but himself. His most successful work seems to be when he lets other run the show, and his real problems started when he forgot that and tried to be front and center on everything without anyone filtering his ideas and verbal thoughts. Elon Musk a decade back would now have a different image had he just hired and listened to a good PR person.
The difference of course is that McDonald’s hired a marketing and PR firm to design a successful marketing campaign as well as a cohesive branding strategy that integrated its online and television advertising with an update of their store architectural design.
Musk on the other hand is basically a wrecking ball destroying Twitter. He is not doing a very good job of reinventing the company and likely scared off any future employees who may want to work there, while being the target of a large class action lawsuit against people who were illegally fired.
Yes, the name of the company, the logo, and the idea of “tweets” are all a charming evocation of a world filled with brief messages. Twitter has problems, but branding isn’t one of them.
Folks, we need to sit down and have a serious talk about this, because this is not the first time U.S. cops have been caught running fucking torture houses in major cities.
This is exactly the kind of bullshit the founding fathers knew would happen when tyranny sets foot on U.S. soil. Say what you will about them, in this case they’re absolutely spot-on.
They founded the U.S. in the middle of a revolution sparked by fuck-shit treatment inflicted upon them like that by the British. They had to fight a particularly nasty war to gain their independence, so they gave us the right to speak and of weapons ownership because they knew, one day, we’d have to do it again.
We are WAY past that time, folks. Holy shit.
FYI: We have spooks forum sliding and concern trolling, specifically to discourage you from supporting or joining a revolution.
They do it because they know how powerful we are when we work together. How powerful we are compared to them and the powers that be. How powerful you are and how important your thoughts, feelings and choices are.
Why else would they find a simple Lemmy thread enough of a threat to be worthy of attacking?
So don’t listen to them. Don’t allow them to manipulate you or to control the conversation. Don’t give them the fight that they want. They are clearly speaking in bad faith. Simply downvote them into a hole and stand strong.
And then what? Shootouts when any cop tries to detain you? These torture houses aren't the first stop after arrest. And people aren't going to jump straight to lethal violence at a traffic stop.
If that’s what it takes. It’s either that or allow them to continue torturing and oppressing American citizens. Do you really want that on your conscience?
By shooting cops? Starting a revolution? Are you doing that? People love to call for violence on the web while sitting at home doing nothing. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.
I'm not saying they shouldn't do that. But every person saying "just go do X" while they themselves are too cowardly to be doing it first is pathetic. I'm not on here saying we should all violently overthrow the police state. Because I'm not out there.
Surprise surprise, a pro-establishment concern troll trying to bait us by making the conversation all about us and not about the fact that cops are literally torturing innocent people post-9/11 style and need to be overthrown to be forced to stop.
Everybody just fucking downvote and ignore this cretin. Nothing you say to him will convince him to support a revolution because he wants things to stay the way they are.
He is openly stating he cares more about our egos than he does about the innocent lives cops are taking on the regular. He gives not one single fuck about anyone other than himself and neither does anyone else who says the same things he does.
Just downvote him and ignore him. We can topple the old state together and put in a new one where there likely aren’t any cops, let alone any that can fucking torture people.
We don’t need to convince people like him that our cause is just.
This always happens. Internet tough guys. Everyone pushing for revolution and arming themselves. But they never have useful ideas what to do next not nor are they bothering to even protest.
You have been brainwashed as to how horrible a society can become, to the point you think an armed populace rebelling is impossible / impractical.
The more people start thinking like you do, the faster we move towards repeating that cycle of oppression the founding fathers attempted to break out of.
No, this thread is specifically for all of us to have this talk. It is not a floor for you concern trolls who care only for keeping the system going at the cost of everybody else’s lives, hopes and dreams.
The whole point of the thread is to talk seriously about revolution. You might not like it, but it’s what we’re going to do, and right now you’re doing nothing but complaining while offering nothing of real value, so we’re going to ignore you now. Good day
It’s not “the us military” that they are fighting. Also don’t say dumbshit stuff like that since if the “US Military” is bombing american cities your liberal drivel is irrelevant.
I actually am being kind of serious about this. The fact that cops are running fucking CIA-style black sites shows us that
They’re escalating their oppressive garbage
Some spook is showing them how
And those alone are enough justification for physically throwing them the fuck out. Go read about the nasty shit the U.S. government did to Middle Eastern men it kidnapped in its war on terror in the 00’s. Their tactics are very similar to how this site and other torture mills U.S. cops have been caught running operate.
I think there is some confusion. The context, as I understood it, was that "they" are conservatives and are not fighting the military. So I wanted to know who they were fighting.
It’s all good. Questions like yours are exactly why I came out and said what I said. We the people need to have this talk. We should have had it 20 years ago.
So I hereby claim specifically that We the People of the United States of America need to start physically overthrowing police departments we catch doing shit like this – and I mean the entire police department of whatever city or county it happens in – and either completely shut down the department or replace every single member wholesale. Physically throw them out; shoot them if necessary. Same with judges, attorneys or any other state actors who participated.
If we don’t we will subject the Zoomers and Alpha Genners to the same horrors we were forced to grow up in… allowing that to happen is in no way conscionable and if we let cops get away with shit like this, we will have no room to blame Boomers and their horrific abuses for the way the world is. The only ones we’ll have to blame at that point is us.
You need to stop talking about this and start doing it, otherwise it's just more useless empty talk. Go get your mates and all your guns and evict some police departments and judges.
I look forward to hearing about you on international news, this is going to be huge!
Because he’s likely a paid spook out forum sliding. Just downvote and ignore him. Any response you give to him is him successfully distracting you from talking about the scandal or revolution. He’s goading you for that purpose.
I'm here because this was a conversation to read and I was bored and scrolling. I got invested because you guys are acting like bad faith actors trying to stoke a 'far left uprising' so the US media and politics can use this as evidence for even more facism.
You're the one who has twice now told people they are all talk and no action and yet are offended by people telling you to take up arms and get on out there to fight the good fight.
If you have any common sense, you'll see that this person calling everyone who doesn't agree with them a 'paid spook' and telling you to ignore them all in favour of listening only to their incendiary drivel- should not be taken seriously to when they tell you to go on a mass murder spree and steal from national guard arsenals.
Go shoot up police stations and murder judges though if you believe that's what you have to do to. No one here is stopping you. Take all your mates and see how far you can get. I'm sure this will be what it takes to set your country right.
(I'm also not male, so don't be using he/him on me)
Bitch, you're the bad faith commentor here. I have no respect for what you are doing and who you are. Please kill yourself and make the world a slightly better place.
🤦 And now I’m being forced to engage with an obvious concern troll for whom I have no hope of convincing to accept the validity of our way of thinking. Wonderful.
To anyone else reading, let’s start by pointing out the obvious:
You’re the one who has twice now told people they are all talk and no action and yet are offended by people telling you to take up arms and get on out there to fight the good fight.
You need to stop talking about this and start doing it, otherwise it’s just more useless empty talk. Go get your mates and all your guns and evict some police departments and judges.
So you should be out there, gunning down cops and setting a good example for us! Not whinging online about people telling you to get on with it.
Obvious projection and lies are obvious. I actually specifically said only if necessary anyway so this idiot is obviously just strawmanning the pro-revolution stance, and they’re doing it because they are either being paid to do it or are a bootlicker.
A quick check through their post history shows that they’re from the UK, and that fact makes me think this idiot in particular is likely some ignorant anti-American bootlicker who couldn’t even be assed to read the room. We’re Americans. The article is about a torture facility that was secretly being run by cops in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As in not Britain. Like, have a look at this:
Secondly, someone who is going to undermine American efforts to liberate concentration camps in WW2 because of the same dumbass racists running the police departments I’m advocating we overthrow, specifically to stop concentration camps and literal torture facilities from continuing to operate on U.S. soil, is not someone you should be listening to or taking seriously at all.
Our dumbass troll friend even disrespected a dude whose fucking grandma was liberated from a concentration camp by U.S. troops and they still complain.
Even this post here is a big bag of hot air with no real substantive arguments against revolution at all, so it is any wonder I tell you all to not feed trolls like that?
The most they offer is an attempt to undermine my credibility here:
If you have any common sense, you’ll see that this person calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a ‘paid spook’ and telling you to ignore them all in favour of listening only to their incendiary drivel- should not be taken seriously
Which doesn’t work because you all can go through my post history and watch me cuss out racists and evil people of different sorts, then watch people try to call me out for being angry – like I’m sure our dipshit troll up here will do as soon as they see this because they clearly have an axe to grind – and then relent when I tell them to their faces plainly that I don’t care about what they think, because I have done nothing but speak in earnest the entire time I’ve used Lemmy.
I’ve ditched entire Lemmy servers when I called them out for not doing anything about Hexbear tankies brigading, or blatant vote manipulation, or rape apologia on their own servers, stuff no one else apparently had the courage to do, because that’s just how I roll. And when our dear dipshit concern troll tries to go through my post history to try to discredit me, that’s all you’ll see.
Because I am being 100% honest, open, and in earnest about this. We need to throw out these shitty governments that blatantly and flagrantly abuse their own people in the most horrific of ways, murder people on the street because of their race, and allow corporations and charlatans to claim our lands and make off with trillions of dollars of our own hard-earned money. I don’t care what happens to me as a result of saying what I am saying. If I cared about what anybody thought or would do in kind, I wouldn’t have this account.
But we can’t say that about this idiot who’s obviously just lying and arguing in bad faith simply because they don’t like Americans.
Anybody who would seriously oppose revolution against city governments that are raping and torturing their citizens Is Not Someone You Should Take Seriously At All. In no timeline does engaging with anyone like that seriously accomplish anything positive.
They’re nothing but an over-inflated bag of immature vitriol and you all need to start treating them as such.
They’ve proven time and time again they’re tyrants and are self-aware about it, and therefore need to be physically removed, but we both know you’re just here to forum slide and not to have an honest debate, so ignoring you now
It’s not against the military. Nobody mention the army or marines you dummy. This is about the police. We can take those fuckers. Pigs don’t have artillery and air support.
I think it is a combination of bootlickers and a few cops. I don't think it is to goad anyone into doing anything. They don't want people to actually attack them. I think they are trying to get people to say certain things that would be criminal so they can arrest them before they attack.
So be careful with your words. Instead of saying "I am going to kill the baton rouge police chief," say "I am going to effect change" or something along those lines.
At the same time watch for those that are trying to goad you into typing something they can take action on.
The hosts of fediverse instances DO NOT have the resources to fight government subpoenas over what you say.
The concern trolls are probably just spooks paid to forum slide. They did a hell of a job – nobody ever got a chance to seriously talk about the notion; we all spent the entire time arguing with them instead of focusing on what matters, myself included.
The government’s real power here though is in the fear – everyone’s afraid to openly talk about such things because they fear they’re being spied on by NSA spooks or the FBI or whatever. And most importantly, it’s become taboo and socially unacceptable to talk about revolution, and that’s the way the government set it up through decades of propaganda and how it intends to keep things, down to the very last innocent life. When everyone feels comfortable openly talking about revolution, there’ll be no need for anybody to be afraid anymore, and that’s what the system truly fears. Then it’ll be impossible to arrest people for fomenting such talk since they literally can’t actually arrest everybody.
That, clearly, is the most important thing that needs to happen. Once the wall of fear comes down, so does their shitty house of cards they’ve been using to control everybody. The concern trolls are here to keep it up, hence the forum sliding.
Well, the reason the Vietnamese won was through mastery of the environment. They knew the jungles inside and out, and the American military didn’t.
We the People need to get to know our cities well because, if something like a revolution actually happens soon, that’s where most of the fucking fighting’s going to be. Plus, these are cops we’re dealing with. Setting up ambushes for them would be pretty easy. It’s open fighting during something like, say, a protest that the cops have always held the advantage of, simply because they were willing to use crowd control tactics and take advantage of the lay of the land while protesters were unwilling to.
A lawsuit filed Monday by Baton Rouge grandmother Ternell Brown provides chilling details about one such search. In filings at Baton Rouge’s federal courthouse, Brown recounts how she was out driving on 10 June when two officers, Lawrence Jr and Matthew Wallace, noticed prescription medications in her car during a traffic stop.
Brown asserts that she had offered to show the cops that she had a valid prescription, but they didn’t want to hear it. They took her to the Brave Cave, ordered her to fully undress, and made her spread her vagina to officers who were men, the lawsuit alleges.
That’s the new normal our kids will be trapped in if we don’t.
As far as I can tell, this prolifically posting account has literally never posted an article that wasn't negative on Ukraine, and posts about 90% negative on the West in general. For whatever that's worth.
Eager to see what coping everyone switches to when it becomes obvious to Ukraine that the deal Russia offered in 2022 before the Kiev withdrawal was the best possible reality they would ever see again. Little Weimar on the Dnieper. No NATO, no EU, no Donbass, no Crimea.
Then again the epic bacon sirs will probably be given a new shiny thing in Asia or Africa to focus on.
I feel like I could invade your home unprovoked and take over your kitchen, eventually trashing up the floors to setup trenches to prevent you from retaking it and you'd just agree to negotiate and let me take your bedroom to fuck your mother.
I mean, I'm very wealthy, and the country I live in is also very wealthy. And we both agree we can spend pennies of the vast amount of our tax dollars to fuck up a shithole struggling incompetent third-world country like Russia through a highly competent proxy like Ukraine without lifting a finger. So yes I agree.
You also didn’t refute what I said about invading your home, so you sound like a tankie cuck. PM me your address please and I can help show your beautiful kind mother a good time.
Oh dear, I thought you were at least smart enough to gather the economy isn’t personal finances.
Have you tried mailing your thought provoking posts to Putin? Maybe it will change the reality I described. Maybe he never considered it’s not very nice and he should simply leave, and actually you can win anytime.
Have a nice Sunday night seething at the internet in your mansion, be sure to get your butler to telegram Putin before bed
No I haven't thought about it, because I'm happy sending Ukraine 30 year old dusty ancient arms and equipment that was sitting in storage, and surprised it is still capable of pushing Russian shit back up their asses. Hopefully many of them will die, fuck them Russian soldiers.
Thank you, I will definitely enjoy my weekend. Although it's not a mansion, I'm very certain with a high degree of confidence it's nicer than the shithole tankie hovel you live in, which makes me pity you for how pathetic you have become, not seethe.
No, I expected them to go hide in their little corner of it when the bulk of the population moving here turned out to reject their particular view on reality.
Whether they "founded" the platform is irrelevant, it's an open platform and they're going to be in the minority.
Edit: Oh, and since you switched the goalposts from tankies to "Marxist Leninists", I figured I should point that out. I'm specifically talking about the people who think Russia's full of awesome and manliness and crap like that, rather than being the kleptocratic mafia state basket case it actually is. "Marxist Lenninism" is just a word those people use to sound intellectual.
In the past day I've been described as being "from" noncredibledefense and "from" datahoarder. I do happen to subscribe to both those communities, but I'm not "from" anywhere in particular. Those are just some of many subjects I'm interested in. It's odd, this sort of community identification never seemed to come up on Reddit. And you personally certainly didn't bring me here, I don't know who you are.
Also, not sure why you've identified me as a "Liberal." Haven't voted for them in several elections now.
That's not why I came here, though. I was active on a great many other subreddits, and I "found out" about the Fediverse through other channels. I think I recall seeing that post, now that you mention it, but as I recall I already had an account here (or perhaps on lemmy.ml, which I tried out for a bit before switching to kbin.social).
What's "funny" about me being so active here? I was active on lots of different subreddits on Reddit. You're active here too apparently, is that "funny?" Honestly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
We joined a platform founded and inhabited by Marxist leninists and checks notes … Expected them to not support an authoritarian capitalist country. Is that really too much to ask?
They’re 10% positive on the West? Thank you for this valuable information comrade. We’ll be sending them back to the reeducation center for ideological training purposes.
Ha, I knew it! I knew the OP was a Kremlin asset and it wasn’t just me grasping for reasons to not engage with an article from a credible mainstream source because it presents an inconvenient reality.
I didn't attack the source. I just pointed out that someone posting more than most on lemmy could push a certain point of view using any and all sources if they cherry pick.
Wow, that’s a new one. “I can’t question the legitimacy of the source so I’ll question the legitimacy of the poster as a way of refusing to engage with reality”
That's certainly quotes around a lot of things I didn't say. I admit I need to do a better job seeing past my own biases.
I also admit OPs posting pattern is materially irrelevant to the contents of the Washing Post article on its own. I was just pointing out a larger pattern within the c/worldnews community as a whole. In that context someone with an agenda can have influence.
But I'm not sure why I did. They seem like a nice person and post good faith articles. This was probably a misaimed shot on my part, true or not.
God forbid someone tries to have a well rounded opinion on the situation through all the western propaganda by contributing articles outside of the one narrative you choose to believe.
I actually read most of Nightowl's submissions for the reason you mention, to read outside my "narrative." But they have an agenda and people should know that.
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.