comfy

fwiw, Hong Kong protestors were protesting about their own home, rather than these universities protesting in international solidarity against their university’s investments and policies. I’d kinda expect the Hong Kong ones to be defended more viciously.

The Zionist Regime is amazingly out of touch. I know on some level they don’t care, but even their propaganda targeted at populations of allied countries is bizarre and making their audience second-guess them.

Maybe they can still congratulate Trump for dodging the draft and insulting the troops.

IIRC they call it the “Resistance War against America” (Kháng chiến chống Mỹ), and I think the small phrasing difference is important.

lemmy.ml is not a general-purpose instance. We have community standards. To quote from that post, linked on our front page:

If you dont like the way lemmy.ml works, thats okay. Federation exists exactly to solve that problem, let different groups have their own instances, with their own rules and political views. You can see the list of existing instances, and instructions for setting up a new one on join-lemmy.org.

lemmy.ml, as a community, don’t tolerate posts advocating the invasion and genocide of Gaza. Why should we? There’s no value in their offensive post whatsoever. There’s no societal benefit in allowing it just because, there’s no reason in some abstract liberalist tolerance of everything, we are an anti-bigotry community and our moderators have an obligation to our community to kick that junk out. So why should they be allowed to say it?

And I think it’s harmful to frame this as being about “opposing views” or “disagreement”. It’s about kicking out someone who wants innocent people, including some members of our community, killed by a proudly-genocidal ethnostate’s imperialist invasion. That’s not merely an opposing view or a disagreement! That’s not even some abstract what-if or some reasoned critique, that’s simply endorsing a threat to our community. If you want to see that stuff, for whatever reason, then you’ll need to look somewhere else. We don’t platform trash here.

(And, in case you need the cherry on top, they’ve also made another post supporting rape as a war crime ^[link])

When you think about it, the Viet Cong cheated by not using loud bomber planes and napalm.

Honestly, we shouldn’t assume they’ll always do stupid things, but they will do stupid things.

How they handled this training exercise rlly maeks me think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

edit: and then I scrolled down and saw people already discussing it lol

“America First!” -> garbage $600,000,000 bribe to Greenland citizens

[edit: whoops, you’re right, I left off three 0s]

I double-checked that this place wasn’t reddit when I joined here three years ago.

So you are against democracy.

No. I am against the simplistic idealistic approach of just unconditionally allowing the most popular candidates to rule, especially given the surrounding circumstances like mass media propaganda turning this nice idea into a pay-to-win scheme, and the broken implementations in most countries (FPTP, systematic voter disenfranchisement, etc.). Just look at how that turns out in the USA, repeatedly. There are many other ways democracy can be structured. Most ‘democractic countries’ have extremely broken federal electoral systems which fail to represent the voting people, despite it seeming democratic on the surface with elections.

Who gets to decide the leaders now? If you live in a modernized country and a federal candidate does not have the support of the rich owning class, they won’t have much chance at competing with airtime on television and news, support of paid ‘influencers’ and other celebrities, commercial advertising spots, social media astroturfing campaigns and all the other ways to make a candidate seem important enough to have a chance of winning. The bottom line is, realistically speaking, the only viable candidates at leading on a federal level are those promoted by the ultra-rich, every other candidate and party is fringe. I assert that you effectively having to choose between candidates pre-selected by the owning class is not a valid democracy. Even if you have the right and the freedom to do due diligence and vote for a minor party which is closer to your views, that freedom is ultimately useless in a popularity contest influenced by mass media. That minor party, in real life, never had a fair chance of winning, no matter how popular their policies are.

…the leaders generally get to make the laws, so I don’t think legality is a useful safeguard.

I dont think its good, but its people right to have the leader they choose.

Well, that’s all well and good in an idealistic liberalist abstract, but in reality it often leads to (and Romania’s own history did lead to) mass suffering, extermination of minorities, and getting invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union after their fascist leader Codreanu allied with Hitler. So, it’s best nipped in the bud, no matter what the majority believe.

Șoșoacă, in fact, is under investigating for commemorating Codreanu in public.

Trying to fight against the rights of the majority of the population is a dangerous battle only previously tried by authoritarian dictatorships and similar regimes.

That’s definitely not limited to authoritarian dictatorships. Seeing as you’re posting from an aussie instance, Whitlam’s dismissal comes to mind, along with lockdown laws (whether the majority approved or not).

Also worth mentioning, in Romania, political left and rights seem to be flipped.

The left-right framework just isn’t useful. As you’ve pointed out, it’s relative and changes massively between each country.

This video helps explain in more depth and proposes a more useful, effective political model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k

Relevant: ^[source]

If we’re lucky, we might avoid the World Wars which made many other revolutions possible.

They all could’ve been sold and the money used to help poor people.

Nice fantasy. But no, that was never going to happen in real life.

Now there’s nothing.

Now there’s a clear message in international headlines, and one heard by those trying to profit using Tesla.

That’s true, and if we’re lucky, some of those 300,000 people can help make it happen.

I just think the “just start blasting” attitude I keep seeing from people is naive

That’s true, although I must be in different circles because I don’t see it much.

Def agree with the rest.

we would still lose hilariously because we don’t have drones, missiles, helicopters, or tanks.

Those alone don’t win wars, the USA’s military history is more than enough evidence of that, not to mention guerilla movements in other countries past and present. I’m not trivializing their power either, but when we’re talking about resistance rather than the idealistic 2A government overthrow fantasy, it’s important not to simply assume that the state’s technological advantage makes any armed resistance futile.

What am i, one unaffiliated person, going to do against a tyrannical government?

Affiliate.

No serious struggle can be resisted alone. Organizing is necessary, this is especially clear when looking at groups which successfully resisted fascist invasion.