So you consider a state censoring all it’s citizens from discussing certain words and topics to not be authoritarian?

uhm idk who’s not familiar with Thiel but the blueprint of his “utopia” - “The Sovereign Individual” was literally co-written by no other than William Rees-Mogg a conservative house of lords cross-bencher who’s also the father of two other conservative MPs that have served in the UK Parliament.

the 2014 reprint of the book has a foreword by Thiel, where he says that it’s “the most influential book he had read”

so as usual the theoretical frameworks have been drafted in the heart of empire and implemented in the “land of the free”

She’s also less likely to be disappeared than others.

Honestly I feel this is her playing to her advantages - Israel can (and does) sink ships carrying aid - and while I have utmost respect for the crews and aid volunteers on those ships - Israel doesn’t - and having a high profile person on board that Israel knows is bad PR if they kill provides some safety for the whole crew.

The article you’ve linked says they’ve forgiven less than 5% of the total amount lended so not sure I’d classify that as “frequent”

Further, the PRC does not require austerity politics or otherwise giving up sovereignty over the recipients economy, they pay for infrastructural development.

I agree this is definitely a good thing but I want to acknowledge they do also directly profit from all this development - they’re not doing it to help others for the socialist ideal but for strategic geopolitical goals

they just fundamentally don’t have the same mechanics that force imperialism in the west, like huge private monopoly and falling rates of profit.

But they still operate in the same system which is why even their renegotiated loans never fall below the 2% inflation rate.

Idk I can understand critical support of China when it comes to challenging western imperialism I just don’t agree with their approach of rejecting egalitarianism and enforcing material inequality as a means to supposedly reach communism

So you’re saying that China didn’t extend or take advantage of western debt traps for their own economic and geopolitical goals?

So

• Sri Lanka desperately needs $1.12 billion to avoid defaulting to Western bondholders
• China provides that cash immediately
• In exchange they get 99-year control of a $1.4 billion strategic asset
• Sri Lanka still owes them the original construction debt
• China now controls 70% of future port profits for a century (or two)

And look I’m not claiming that this crisis wasn’t caused by western imperialism - but calling it a “trade” or “multilateral exchange” when China very obviously took advantage of a country in crisis for almost exclusively their own benefit is disingenuous.

Do you really see no issues with such predatory lending (irrespective of it being done by the IMF or BRI)?

Didn’t Mao do the Cultural Revolution specifically to prevent (not that it was implemented well or that it worked) what he saw the USSR was becoming and wanted to prevent China from following in the same capitalistic footsteps?

As in do you believe the person who said

(2) The imperialist powers have forced China to sign numerous unequal treaties by which they have acquired the right to station land and sea forces and exercise consular jurisdiction in China, [17] and they have carved up the whole country into imperialist spheres of influence. [18]

(3) The imperialist powers have gained control of all the important trading ports in China by these unequal treaties and have marked off areas in many of these ports as concessions under their direct administration.[19] They have also gained control of China’s customs, foreign trade and communications (sea, land, inland water and air). Thus they have been able to dump their goods in China, turn her into a market for their industrial products, and at the same time subordinate her agriculture to their imperialist needs

would approve of the belt and road debt trap or the actual 99 year lease China used to take over the port of Colombo in Sri Lanka ?

Or is it fine to exploit other countries if the people in your country benefit?

Even then you believe they’re socialist when Deng Xiaoping says (and Xi repeats this “common prosperity” rhetoric) that

“Our policy is to let some people and some regions get rich first, in order to drive and help the backward regions, and it is an obligation for the advanced regions to help the backward regions.”

So you recognize the failure of neoliberal “trickle down” economics but refuse to accept that if the same capital accumulation happens in a “socialist” country its suddenly not a problem?

And you really think that Jack Ma and his family won’t fight tooth and nail to keep their private jets and offshore million dollar houses instead of forgoing them voluntarily for the good of the socialist project? please…

Warning: Setting fish as your login shell may cause issues, such as an incorrect PATH. Some operating systems, including a number of Linux distributions, require the login shell to be Bourne-compatible and to read configuration from /etc/profile. fish may not be suitable as a login shell on these systems.

deleted by creator

Genetically modified cat girls exist right now??? Where???

I believe nuanced discourse is very important - especially when it comes to children and their safety.

With that said I can’t help but think this author despite (seemingly) in support of trans people - has written a fair few articles that go against trans inclusion and none for. Again that’s fair and everyone is entitled to their opinion (even when written with the authority of a national paper)

What I find strange however, is the inherit contradictions of the authors overall position.

Let’s take the OP article for example - it argues that blockers and hormones should not be prescribed to children unless there’s a lengthy process to determine if that’s the best course of action - which may or may not be valid. However, in another article the same author also argues “Every spot taken by someone with a male athletic advantage is an opportunity closed to a female rival.” and again platforming “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete” - which on their own seem sensible but when you put both positions together the argument becomes “kids shouldn’t transition and adults that have gone through agab puberty shouldn’t play competitive sports therefore trans people just shouldn’t be in sports period” - which I feel is a much harder position to defend on it’s own (something something motte and bailey)

I guess I’m saying that yes we should have nuanced discourse but maybe your best messengers for this discourse shouldn’t also be saying “In this climate, who would challenge someone with a beard exposing their penis in a women’s changing room?”

US for all it’s shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran

As I said: “that’s an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…”

I’m just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it’s own weight.

Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.

Obviously I’m not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I’m saying that by manufacturing consent for the “war on terror” the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what’s happening in Ukraine)

So I’m arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.

And if you’re claiming that “Everyone’s in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes.” but “Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists” is “hardly a war” - then you’re either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you’re saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.

I feel we may not be understanding each other so I’ll present my argument and you present yours?

My point is: The G7’s hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.

Again, the UK (MI6 on behalf of British Petroleum) were one of the key players in carrying out the coup against Mosaddegh and despite the whole Brexit thing the UK is still very much part of Europe.

Western Europe is quite obviously against everything that’s currently happening.

Also this^ is obviously nonsensical when we’re commenting under a post about how the major European powers are 100% backing Israel and condemning Iran in an escalation that was started by Israel - which part of this looks to you like Europe is against what’s happening?

As for the alliance between Iran and Russia - yeah it sucks - I’d much rather them be aligned with us but I can’t blame them when they’ve been historically exploited by the west so they turn to the enemy of my enemy as their friend.

Maybe if western proxy states (Israel) were to stop bombing them under the pretext of Iran being months away from nuclear weapons for the past 30 years it would be possible to have more civil relations and be less aligned with Russia.

Now you may think it’s too late for that - which I understand - but then you must also recognize that at that point you’re calling for the military annihilation of either side - which is an easy position to hold when you’re on the side with all the nukes…

Idk this has similar energy to “If conservatives hate foreigners and progressives see through the bullshit PR - why shouldn’t Shein just continue using child slaves?”

I appreciate you explaining your point - I guess I was just trying to say that smokers generally don’t smoke just to spite/give others cancer - and that it’s usually a coping strategy - and sure that’s not always the case and there are rich and well off smokers as well

I guess I just wanted to note that most smokers don’t choose to smoke but do it because they’re addicted - not just to the nicotine but also to the feeling of control to immediately calm yourself down (I’m not saying its a healthy or sustainable coping mechanism but an understandable one)

weird you ask for people to have empathy for poor and struggling people but then hate on smokers when those people are almost always smokers themselves - genuinely you’ll be hard pressed to find a struggling person that doesn’t smoke

maybe there’s something more to knowingly poising oneself for the fleeting feeling of control and comfort that doesn’t have anything to do with “people who choose hurting others for their own convenience”?

Is Varg a TIRF (trans inclusive radical fascist)??

Removed by mod