Thanks for linking the UN Report - really horrific stuff:

Two-thirds of the twenty-six former detainees interviewed, reported having been subjected to treatment that would amount to torture and/or other forms of ill-treatment, either in VETC facilities themselves or in the context of processes of referral to VETC facilities. These claims of mistreatment took place either during interrogations or as a form of punishment for (alleged) wrongdoing. Their accounts included being beaten with batons, including electric batons while strapped in a so- called “tiger chair”; being subjected to interrogation with water being poured in their faces; prolonged solitary confinement; and being forced to sit motionless on small stools for prolonged periods of time.

Some also spoke of various forms of sexual violence, including some instances of rape, affecting mainly women. These accounts included having been forced by guards to perform oral sex in the context of an interrogation and various forms of sexual humiliation, including forced nudity. The accounts similarly described the way in which rapes took place outside the dormitories, in separate rooms without cameras. In addition, several women recounted being subject to invasive gynaecological examinations, including one woman who described this taking place in a group setting which “made old women ashamed and young girls cry”, because they did not understand what was happening. The Government has firmly denied these claims, often through personal or gendered attacks against the women who have publicly reported these allegations.

The extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detention of members of Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim groups, pursuant to law and policy, in context of restrictions and deprivation more generally of fundamental rights enjoyed individually and collectively, may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.

You’re right it’s incorrect to call it a genocide but I’m glad you at least agree that “rape”, “torture”, “deprivation of fundamental rights” and probable “crimes against humanity” are being committed in the “re-education” camps against non-Han ethnic groups with the government being at the very least complicit by denying any wrongdoing - so it’s good to know you don’t blindly believe the CCP to be a benevolent force for good but can recognize the harm they’ve already caused to Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks and Huis in Xinjiang.

I feel it’s complicated - on one hand yes they are supposedly anti-fossil fuels and are saying to replace them with electrified alternatives - on the other the website has so many pro-AI articles that do have some anti-ff messaging but also an underlying “well it does suck but it’s unrealistic to power them with anything else so whacu gonna do”

Some data centers have invested in transmission and distribution networks, at times increasing their investment by over 35% to connect to the grid. Still, concerns about the energy deficit and the impacts of fossil fuels haven’t affected new investments, Rivera Cerecedo said.

“We aren’t seeing a slowdown in the industry,” she said. “The effort that companies developing data centers are making to stay in Mexico is big.”

and for a newspaper focused on “VCs sitting in Palo Alto to think twice when a proposal from Indonesia comes across their desk” the above does read like unvoiced support for whatever gets them their superintelligent AI dream.

Idk I’m just saying that this may not be pro-fossil fuels but its still definitely pro-capitlaism and industrial exploitation under the veneer of neo-liberal human rights concerns…

Actually fair enough - having read the whole article it does seem much more preoccupied with the dangers of nickel mining than the proven negative effects of fossil fuels and stuff like this is quite obvious pro-ff propaganda

It’s almost impossible to transition away from fossil fuels without nickel from Indonesia,” said Johnny Linghui Ni, a United Kingdom-based research analyst for Project Blue, a data provider on critical minerals. “And it may stay this way until at least 2030, if not longer.”

Still useful to learn about but compared to the landscape of positive oil rig articles this definitely doesn’t pass the smell test - thanks!

Ah yes the oil supporting Uproot Project of the Environmental Justice Fellowship…

Just because nickel mining is verifiably awful doesn’t mean oil rig work is any better. The point most serious environmental groups make is that we shouldn’t just replace fossil fuel based exploitation and environmental destruction with metal and rare earth ones instead.

We should focus on an overall reduction of consumption not just taking the over 1 billion cars and turning them electric but instead rethinking our whole relationship with nature.

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…