Liberalism is associated with those things because it allowed them to happen to avoid a negative effect to property rights (revolution, riots) once more radical people pushed for them. Liberalism is reactionary and regressive, but some liberals are easier to convince of specific rights extensions than others. You’ve been lied to a lot if you think liberals did these things
I would be easily convinced I was wrong if you’d show any sort of proof. So take your imperialist ass and shove yourself in a wood chipper or a mineshaft if you are unwilling to spend 5 minutes googling to prove your claim or prove yourself wrong.
Yeah the “field of bodies” video is pretty easy to find even if you’re not looking for it. I don’t blame you for not wanting to see the shit, It’s terrible. But don’t come with some fake claim that only cars can be found. “Leveled” is a word used to mean “made rubble” sometimes and “made to be as useless and dangerous as rubble” others. This is probably the latter time, but I haven’t seen videos showing the remains of the building honestly. I don’t search for this shit tho
Find something or delete this bullshit.
You should read a goddamn book about any of these topics or begone ye 
Edit: ah shit I’m outside of Hexbear. Ok then let’s engage a bit here. What about these things seems contradictory to you? That there is an active genocide for about 100 years in Palestine or that Stalin is good?
To be clear, because reading it again gave me some unclarity, I absolutely defend Stalin because he was good, not just as a rhetorical strategy. Just that even if he could’ve been better, he was the best possible and denigrating him denigrates socialism every time. Real critique is fine (“75% good of course”) but painting him as a problem as a person cannot be removed form socialism. Hamas is doing decolonization, and denigrating them is denigrating decolonization
Yes, we must understand that not only do Gazan Palestinians as a majority support Hamas, but Hamas is a force for good and they are correct for doing so. Sure, after decolonization, start fighting for a better representative, but for now Hamas is the best shot they have at not being genocided.
This same framework is used every time there is a broad movement which chooses, with good reason, for a strong group which can accomplish their goals. “Socialism is fine but Stalin did it bad” but then the purity fetish prevents the original goal from ever being achieved. Don’t bother convincing people socialism is good but Stalin bad. No Stalin is good and so I socialism.
You can just make it a “born before this date” and it just solves this entirely. That date just doesn’t change. Everyone who sells darts memorizes it. Then it actually changes every day by a day. Fuck it, let’s give it an hour too, just to fuck with those kids born an hour later
Also I’m an engineer too, but I have no idea why you think those connect here tbh . And you dont ascribe your position as political ideology because you swim in yours and can’t see it. I see yours clearly and am forced to constantly confront my own with interactions outside of my framework
So liberalism as a philosophy is a complex topic, but it’s one I indulge in often from an outside perspective (and we are forced to regardless of our desires, because it dominate global discussions). But what I was claiming, and what you unintentionally upheld in your comment, is that liberalism mistakes stated values for a limited group for the total fulfillment of those values. When Americans preach free speech, they don’t think about it in terms of any real thing they can say or do which will ever make a difference. Valuing “human rights” means valuing those who oppose the stated enemies above those who oppose the state itself. It’s because liberals base the philosophy in how the self (cogito, daarin, etc.) as an individual thinks outside of any context of society around them. It allows one to focus primarily on stated intentions rather than real effects
Liberals in history have made these mistakes over and over, and I don’t believe and refuse to believe it’s just naivety. It’s because it works to support the status quo that so many come to the conclusion that this dynamic is correct, that values are primary and not the reflections of tje society. If it dkdntd maintain the status quo then it wouldn’t be believed. This is again the same argument in form, where I don’t think the way liberals see themselves has any primary position, but what matters is how their framing of the world influences it.
But we all know none of this is written in policies, which is why I’m asking for any sort of proof of follow-up on the tens of thousands of cases by American soldiers. Or any proof of a policy which is upheld by the American government. I can probably point to some CIA documents about the topic from Abu ghraib or such as explicitly done. But the major problem is that this poster believes in such things as “policies” as existing outside of the material existence of the actions, which is a super liberal viewpoint and which communists need to learn to rebut. America also has “policies” about addressing homelessness but homelessness is endemic and worsening.
I also don’t believe they can prove anything about Russian cases being more widespread or tolerated
Provide any proof of these claims. I will likely dismiss what you provide if you do, but I promise to give good reason and dive deep into the sources first
The larger point here being not some whataboutism, but a counter-claim to Russia doing any such thing systematically. The deaths of civilians is always wrong but inevitable in war, but any claim that it’s any more systematic in this war than in others needs to be able to reckon with this huge difference in scale. I don’t believe the original person claiming this about Russia can achieve that
Lol fuck you No I’m pleasantly surprised at how little violence against civilians has happened in Ukraine. They never for a moment did the all out war that the US has waged on so many countries. None of that justifies the acts of Russia, but it does mean that your view is so terribly skewed by your western propaganda that I can’t imagine you being right about anything else lol
But also, you can look into my comment history if you want, for some good explanations on my position on Putin and Russia in this war. I have principles and material analyses. You have vibes
https://hexbear.net/comment/3746587 An example of a very simple version of why I critically support russia
Lolyou think this is “indiscriminate”? Fuck, you should’ve zeen Fallujah or Vietnam or Korea. Ukraine has so much infrastructure and housing left in perfectly usable conditions. One of my major issues at the beginning was that I expected Russia to be much more violent and have been very surprised at how little of the violence has been on non-combatants
Still literally none of that goes against what was said. There’s s war, and when that happens and territory changes hands, there’s always this problem (or the military let’s the children just run around with parents gone and get themselves hurt). It’s not unique and it’s not something you have a better idea for. Its why we stand for bringing and end to wars generally while you stand for ending Russia (where the next war will just come at the next eastern border where this whole cycle will repeat). Can you not see how areas which have become Russian through referendum will have issues of parents being gone and wanting children back, but Russia can’t just send em randomly across a border. They’ve gotta have checks for the parenthood and that the children are not also claimed by another parent that stayed (a case which often happens with divorces, and complicates it). All while trying to work with a government that very obviously is not willing to work with you. All the articles fit this narrative also, just with spin on top using specific wording and leaving out details.
Your linked articles makes literally no fact-claims outside of what my comrade there said. It just ignored whatever reasons Russia have and assumed the worst or let you imagine/fill in the gaps. Edit: added “no” because it was missing
Philosophy absolutely has the ability to examine and propose better definitions when definitions (like the ones you linked) do not capture the phenomenon. Losurdo read more books than you’ve seen by liberals in order to write his “Liberalism” book. He understood the phenomenon deeper and further than its dictionary use.
How do you capture such a thing in your world view? Because he found flaws in definitions and worked deeper, he just did nothing because it wasnt the Oxford definition?