IDF soldiers are beheading children by the dozen and we’re supposed to care that a soldier - who presumably knew what he was getting into - was killed in a slightly unusual but likely more humane way than dying slowly of an infected shrapnel wound?

If you believe this conflict is about religion, you are a gullible idiot. The conflict is a colonial one; the same sort of genocidal displacement we saw in North America only on the age of smartphones.

If everyone on both sides became Atheists, the Israelis would still be butchering the Palestinians and the Palestinians would still be fighting for their freedom.

“The Central Banks are Communist” - 1,000 IQ take from local Lemmy brain-genius

Political affiliation is not a protected class, nor should it be.

Someone please think of the rights of the landowners!

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Blocking imports of Chinese EVs while American manufacturers keep their EVs as luxury products and prioritize CE vehicles is not only blatant protectionism, but another way to kill the planet for the sole purpose of enriching a small minority of very wealthy people.

Bad take.

Putin is not good, but he also isn’t Hitler. He is not an absolute evil. And regardless of the unknowable legitimacy of Russia’s elections, he’s more popular in Russia than most American Presidents are in the U.S. And at least to me, popularity is a better metric for Democracy than anything else.

Navalny is worse than Putin. Regardless of anything else, Putin believes in Multiculturalism and Ethnopluralism (his nationalism is a Civic nationalism, not an Ethnic nationalism). Navalny has significantly less support in Russia than Putin; him being put in charge would be inherently undemocratic. Navalny would also be a Dictator; he would just be a Pro-Democracy Dictator.

And this isn’t even touching on Geopolitics. Navalny is an opportunist who seeks to sell out Russia to the West. Putin is aligned with other anti-Imperialist global forces, such as China and Iran.

Putin is the pragmatic choice, not Navalny.

Ivan Guiadovsky

No, because the Taiwanese Nationalists are ethnically Chinese and want Taiwan to be an ethnically Chinese country.

You can compare it to how more Native American groups supported the British than the Americans in the Revolutionary War: they understood that they would have more autonomy as a minority in a large, multi-ethnic state than a smaller ethnostate.

All occupiers are legitimate targets

So long as the West does not intervene, this is the beginning of Afghanistan’s slow transition into a functioning industrial state.

Industrialism is the first step towards Socialism, and is vastly preferable to medievalism. This is good for both the people and government of Afghanistan and it’s good for both the people and government of China. The only people who lose are the West.

This is very sad - the DPRK and it’s government have made every good-faith attempt to pursue reunification and reconciliation but the occupation government, controlled by Capitalist interests, has never stopped its aggression towards the North or considered reunification through any means but subjugation seriously.

Any American ship within firing distance of Yemen deserves to be bombed. They could simply leave yet choose not to.

The “No Fly Zone is a declaration of war” truism only works when you’re declaring one over another nation’s sovereign territory. Oman has every right to determine what military aircraft can enter their airspace, and if another country’s military violates that airspace, they will have declared war, not Oman.

Who cares if it’s “Legal” or not under U.S. law?

There’s a word for this, the promotion of leaders based on merit instead of popularity - Technocracy. And it’s not a distinct ideology but a syncretic one that has been adopted by many groups with differing politics. The most prominent example would be the Technocratic faction of the People’s Republic of China, which was opposed to the Maoists back in the 50s and 60s; they argued for society to be led by experts instead of Democratically with a strong emphasis on Peasant participation (the standpoint of the Maoists). China today follows a moderate path taking from both factions.

In the West, however, Technocracy is mostly associated with Liberals; however, I would argue that the modern Liberal view of Technocracy is fundamentally flawed, since it relies on Capitalism distributing wealth meritocratically (which Socialists understand is not the case).

Lmao amazing