• 0 Posts
  • 183 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlPonder This
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Could have been someone else (not Trump) allowing an attempt on Trump’s life, figuring:

    1. If they stop it early, they’re heroes and Trump gets a boost. Could have planned to not let him get shots off and fucked up that part.
    2. If Trump actually dies, it’s a tossup election at worst and Trump is more self-interested than ideologically conservative anyway.

    Possible, definitely not a sure thing.


  • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlPonder This
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Close. The internet was never leftist – as in opposing capitalism. It was at its best the ACLU wing of liberal, and at its worst the age of consent wing of libertarian.

    When social media exploded, the internet condensed to just a few aggregator platforms. You now had all this traffic and attention that could be more easily monetized than a million small websites and forums, and that’s what happened. Your few companies that own these aggregator platforms now have an enormous financial interest in (1) keeping content palatable to advertisers and (2) keeping regulation and taxes at bay. They accomplish the second in part by cooperating with the U.S. intelligence community, to the point of becoming one of the many industries with a revolving door between their corporate governance and the parts of the actual government that deal with the industry.

    Of course any significant leftist communities on these platforms get snuffed out: big business and the American government hate the left. Your ACLU-type liberals get pushed right or out as the impetus to make money drives every decision, with their free speech language selectively co-opted to protect the right. Then your most right-wing party starts to become openly fascist around the time a fascist buys one of the major platforms and removes even the nominal guardrails against the most egregious fascists.

    Now we’re here: with a few small non-fascist corners of the internet populated by a mix of leftists and liberals.


  • Who cares if the arguments resemble one another? The underlying situations are what determine if the argument makes any sense.

    “I was afraid for my life” is a fine argument for firing back if someone pulls a gun and starts shooting at you. It’s ridiculous when it comes from a cop who opens fire on a kid with something in his hands.

    if ukranians want to stay independent russia should respect that

    The parts of Ukraine Russia controls right now were trying to break away from Ukraine before the war. And again, Russia is not trying to conquer Ukraine – the goal is to keep Ukraine out of NATO.


  • nobody can strip their right to resistance and the over 60k dead Palestinians responsibility lay exclusively on Israel

    Palestinians and Ukranians both have a right to resist attackers. I’m saying it’s sensible for Palestinians to do so (because their attacker has stated their intent to exterminate them, so it’s either fight or die), but not sensible for Ukrainians to do so (because their attacker just wants them not to join NATO, and because there is no realistic hope of the war turning around).

    As for who’s responsible for the deaths: Ukraine’s government almost immediately sold out their people when they (on the advice of Boris Johnson) backed out of ceasefire agreement they had tentatively agreed to in the opening weeks of the war. By choosing to use their people to fight a proxy war for NATO when there was an easy out on the table, they are partly responsible for the deaths of their people.

    Israel say that there is no Palestinians and all the land is our , Russia say that Ukrainians are just Russians that Ukraine was simply part of Russia .

    It cannot be overstated how completely different these situations are. Israel is trying to exterminate Palestinians. Russia does not want Ukraine to be part of a hostile, nuclear-armed military pact. Palestinians are fighting because otherwise Israel will kill them. Ukrainians are fighting because their coup government is having its strings pulled by NATO.

    I think Russia could have with economic pressure alone stop Ukraine from joining NATO

    They tried since 2014, and Ukraine still wouldn’t give it up (or keep their domestic fascist groups from attacking Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine). It turns out Ukraine and NATO weren’t even negotiating in good faith, as Angela Merkel admitted about the Minsk II agreement.


  • There is the type who say palestinians should resist… They say if hamas never attacked

    If anyone says this, they don’t mean it, because it’s completely contradictory. They’re lying to you.

    I would like ukranians to stop dying but not by giving up part of their land

    There’s no future resolution to this war that leaves Ukraine with more land than they have today. Continuing the war just means it will end with less Ukranian land and less Ukranians.

    It’s unlike Palestine because Russia is not fighting a war of extermination and is not trying to drive residents from their homes. The people in the parts of pre-war Ukraine that Russia now controls aren’t being massacred or evicted; they are predominantly Russian speakers who had (to be charitable to Ukraine) legitimate grievances with the Ukranian government after the U.S.-backed coup in 2014.

    From the Ukrainian perspective, there is actually a benefit to a peace on Russia’s terms: Ukraine keeps more of its land and its people stop dying. There’s nothing to be gained by continuing the war because it isn’t going to turn around. This is again unlike Palestine, where peace on Israeli terms would involve at minimum the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and where western public support for Israel has collapsed.










  • rumors of a massacre in the Square would be easy to dispel if foreign journalists were allowed to stay and film. but protests were an embarrassment to China, and China sweeps embarrassments under the rug.

    We don’t know how many people U.S. police kill every year, and you could fill volumes with all the other horrible stuff our government does that only leaks out decades later. Governments being shy about publicizing embarrassments is a government thing, not a Chinese thing.

    The specifics of the incident are murky overwhelmingly due to one reason: the western world decided to mythologize it. The vast majority of western discussion on it now falls into two camps: right-wingers who deliberately spread the most lurid campfire stores imaginable (10,000 deaths! Tanks ground people into paste!), and liberals who lazily repeat inaccuracies and falsehoods that are occasionally more plausible (e.g., the legacy media doing this in the Columbia Journalism Review article). Some academics and leftists will try to sort through all this garbage, but they are the distinct minority.




  • My point was that China ordered the army to do what they did.

    What’s your source for this? Had they been ordered to shoot a bunch of protesters, why would they have let protesters in the square leave peacefully?

    The much more likely scenario is soldiers were met with deadly violence at some point and – as most armed people who face deadly violence will do – opened fire.

    I’m not making an argument about what violence was justified and what wasn’t. I’m pointing out that the facts we agree on contradict your claim that there was some top-down order to massacre people, and that you haven’t provided any support for that claim in the first place.



  • Columbia Journalism Review:

    A few people may have been killed by random shooting on streets near the square, but all verified eyewitness accounts say that the students who remained in the square when troops arrived were allowed to leave peacefully. Hundreds of people, most of them workers and passersby, did die that night, but in a different place and under different circumstances.

    The Chinese government estimates more than 300 fatalities. Western estimates are somewhat higher. Many victims were shot by soldiers on stretches of Changan Jie, the Avenue of Eternal Peace, about a mile west of the square, and in scattered confrontations in other parts of the city, where, it should be added, a few soldiers were beaten or burned to death by angry workers.

    The resilient tale of an early morning Tiananmen massacre stems from several false eyewitness accounts in the confused hours and days after the crackdown. Human rights experts George Black and Robin Munro, both outspoken critics of the Chinese government, trace many of the rumor’s roots in their 1993 book, Black Hands of Beijing: Lives of Defiance in China’s Democracy Movement. Probably the most widely disseminated account appeared first in the Hong Kong press: a Qinghua University student described machine guns mowing down students in front of the Monument to the People’s Heroes in the middle of the square. The New York Times gave this version prominent display on June 12, just a week after the event, but no evidence was ever found to confirm the account or verify the existence of the alleged witness. Times reporter Nicholas Kristof challenged the report the next day, in an article that ran on the bottom of an inside page; the myth lived on. Student leader Wu’er Kaixi said he had seen 200 students cut down by gunfire, but it was later proven that he left the square several hours before the events he described allegedly occurred.


  • I’m certainly not getting my hopes up, but this being in LA instead of Kabul might have a significant effect on how willingly the rank-and-file will just open up on a crowd.

    There’s a big Navy base in San Diego; some of the Marines are probably coming from there. Some probably grew up in California, more probably visited LA at some point. Going a few hours to a place where people speak your language and there an In-and-Out Burger down the street is very different from going halfway across the world to a place where you recognize little and understand far less.