FunkyStuff [he/him]

protest for the sake of conducting the genocide more effectively is definitely enough reason to cut settlers some slack!

Can someone find a recording of him actually saying it? Telesur doesn’t have any info on it. I can’t tell if he was just joking and this is another Why China banned the letter N ridiculous premise you can only believe if you forgot that the enemies of the US still have functioning brains and aren’t mindless drones.

At least in Star Wars they explain the context with the scroll at the start of the movie, libs think that Ukraine literally popped into existence in 2022.

If you’re looking for some in depth discussion BreakThrough News just did a video on the subject.

“Not humanly possible” is a quote from an American swimmer commenting on the Chinese athlete’s performance.

If China tested fewer athletes than the US, you’d call them lax. But they test more than anywhere else and that’s sketchy because it makes this particular metric look better.

During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

Do you think the exodus has happened as a result of Maduro’s policies, or the American imposed sanctions? On what basis do you believe that Maduro is not favored by the public, yet the far right opposition is, the polls with very small sample sizes that showed results similar to what Gonzalez is claiming?

The truth is that Maduro has popular support from every part of Venezuelan society save for the reactionaries who wish for private oil companies to run the country again. I don’t know if you speak Spanish or are from LatAm, but the difference in ideology between wealthier, English speaking Venezuelans and the less fortunate who only speak Spanish is enormous. The numbers that the right is claiming are only feasible if you’ve only ever talked with the upper crust of Venezuela, who see Maduro and Chavez as cruel despots who took away their rightful position in a stratified society. Same as the latifundio owners in Cuba, or the mob, the casino owners, etc. If that is the class of people you interact with, you might come away thinking all Venezuelans hate Socialism. If you talk with the workers you’ll get the opposite impression, and one group obviously outnumbers the other and is being suppressed by this attempted coup.

No Republican had to give anything up to achieve this, this is literally just the Democrats doing exactly what they want to do because they want to do it.

They have a journalistic responsibility to include relevant information and seek comment from relevant groups. The article doesn’t include any comment from healthcare professionals or advocacy groups, nor does it contain any information about potential consequences of the surgeries being banned. It fails to actually inform the public on the issue at hand, and the auxiliary information that is brought up just puts the medical procedure into question by positing it as controversial (yeah, controversial because of transphobes) and questionable. Presenting only a limited section of the issue, but making it seem like it encompasses its entirety, makes this article functionally the same as transphobic propaganda.

Stalin Putin shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin Bakhmut.

There is absolutely reason to capitulate: the fact that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have an average age above 40 and are absolutely scraping the barrel by conscripting any poor man they find. There is no universe where Ukraine pushes back the front to recover any substantial amount of territory. They have already attempted to launch counteroffensives in better conditions, and all they’ve achieved is to slow down Russia, never actually regaining any territory. The only reason they’re even in the war still is because NATO wants to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to weaken Russia, and corrupt Ukrainian politicians are making a quick buck by privatizing they country in the meantime. This is obviously not sustainable long term; in another year or two they won’t be able to recruit more people, or they’ll run out of artillery shlels.

The proof is the article, the burden of proof to provide a comparable case of someone who happened to be doing the most suspicious thing possible and was crucified by the media, yet turned out to be innocent, is on you.

If I had to pick which person is exhibiting behavior in a discussion where one side is playing devil’s advocate for a dude who had 2 small children in his hotel room in an area known for kidnapping and child sex abuse, and another is saying the obvious despite not technically having strong evidence beyond the previously stated, my finger’s on the guy that doesn’t understand burden of proof.

Can you elaborate on how modern sanctions have materially changed from how they were pre-Iraq?

communism made lemmy so where does that leave us