It's not exactly uncommon for systems set up to oppose something to end up supporting them instead. See the ADL covering for Elon and condemning those opposed to genocide as antisemitic. In theory the ADL should be opposed to fascism, but because Israel has become fascist they found themselves on the same side as those who had been and would be their oppressors.
Schmoo
joined 2 years ago
They weren't just asking China to be more humane, though. They were suggesting that China doesn't deserve our cooperation because they are inhumane, which implies we have the moral high ground and is explicitly hypocritical. It isn't whataboutism to point out hypocrisy.
Is the argument here that China isn't worthy of the United States' cooperation? We here in the US need to get over ourselves and stop acting as if we have the moral high ground over everyone else. There are a lot of things about the US that are far from humane, and we do cooperate with countries that engage in far worse, often on our behalf. Our adversarial disposition towards China has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with geopolitics.
Autistic people deserve love too.
A bunch of Americans with a fresh chip on their shoulder for the US government storming a Chinese social media site and airing out their grievances doesn't exactly paint the US in a positive light, I would bet that whoever is responsible for coordinating Chinese propaganda sees this as a free win.
The only theocratic state that can exist in Islam is a caliphate. That’s literally what is in the Quran. There’s no nuance or room for debate here.
Hypothetically, if a fascist government were to form with Islam as the state religion, I would describe it as an Islamic theocracy as well as a fascist dictatorship. To suggest they are mutually exclusive and that only a caliphate - the ideal Islamic theocracy as described in the Quran - can truly be considered an Islamic theocracy is just the No True Scotsman fallacy.
This is a common issue with organized religion in general. To an insider, only your beliefs are the true Islam, and all those others who call themselves Muslims but don't share your exact interpretation aren't real Muslims. To an outsider it's obvious that they are all Muslim, just different sects. No single sect can claim their interpretation is the correct one, yet most try anyway.
Do you hate Islam? Is that why this is so hard for you to grasp?
I have no hate for Islam, and I grasp what you're saying just fine, I just disagree.
You're making a pure semantics argument, saying that an "Islamic theocracy" means something so specific that even if a fascist regime could be considered both Islamic and a theocracy, you can't call it that because only caliphates qualify for that label. It's a bit silly.
There is often a very large gap between what is seen as ideal and what pans out in reality. Fascism is absolutely a possible result of an attempt to establish a caliphate, just as an authoritarian dictatorship or oligarchy - sooner or later - is a possible result of an attempt to establish communism.
They'll just make legal carveouts for government and commercial use, and go after consumer-facing VPN providers that refuse to comply. For VPN providers based outside the US, they could delist their websites from DNS or block their IPs. They can't stop someone who's determined from finding a way, of course, but just a few simple barriers prevents most people from putting in the effort.
I know you're all going to have to get this out of your system, so go ahead. Mock the leftists who stubbornly refused to vote for Kamala. Assign the blame for fascism taking over on those who could not see past their principles to the bigger picture (at least, as you see it). Eventually, you're going to have to move on and acknowledge that the blame cannot fall solely on them.
I voted for Kamala Harris. I, like most of you, felt strongly that doing so was necessary to prevent a far worse outcome. In the short term. The truth is, those that you mock for failing to see what was so plain to you were looking past it to an even larger picture, and that is why they could not see the strategic necessity of their vote. Why they chose not to see it, just as many of you choose not to see something that is very plain to them, the inevitability of this outcome.
Kamala Harris began her campaign to thunderous applause from those who were hopeful that the Democratic Party was finally embracing progressive ideals, only to then abandon and insult those very same hopefuls while moving further to the right than even Biden dared go. Kamala Harris then also proceeded to approach the economically anxious right with the same limp-wristed and tired economic messaging that has consistently failed to address the concerns of the working class. She campaigned as a moderate old Republican, the very same that the Republican electorate abandoned in favor of Trump.
A large number of progressives and radical leftists saw this and surrendered. They sacrificed their hope for change and reform to preserve their principles, and embraced accelerationism where previously they resisted it. I felt what they felt but held onto hope not because I truly believed Kamala Harris would turn around, but because I feared that we were not ready. I voted for Kamala Harris because I wanted to buy just a little more time, but fascism is here now, and we've run out of time.
Accept responsibility, stop assigning blame, we can't afford to. Accept responsibility not because you are at fault, but because no one else will.
Roughly equal number of upvotes and downvotes on this one, commented on a thread in c/meanwhileongrad bashing some random tankies after the election for abstaining or voting 3rd party. I stand by it.
It might help people to see some local journalistic coverage of Cuban elections. Seeing the kinds of things Cubans say publicly about and during the elections can give people a more intuitive understanding of what Cuban democracy is actually like for the people participating in it, as well as start to reveal the outlines of the overton window there.
Journalism is my preferred medium for understanding the political landscape of other countries; for an example I like to watch friendlyjordies on youtube for a peek into Australian politics. I'm not sure if it would be very easy to find English translated Cuban sources though.
More pictures available if needed. I broke a few open that were in rougher shape and they are solid white and spongy all the way through. Found in open woods in West Kentucky.
Thinking about frying these up and seeing how they taste but want a bit more assurance that I'm not taking a huge risk doing so. I couldn't find these in my National Audubon Society Field Guide so I'm a bit reluctant to take the chance.
More pictures available if needed. I broke a few open that were in rougher shape and they are solid white and spongy all the way through. Found in open woods in West Kentucky.
Thinking about frying these up and seeing how they taste but want a bit more assurance that I'm not taking a huge risk doing so. I couldn't find these in my National Audubon Society Field Guide so I'm a bit reluctant to take the chance.
The underside instantly darkens when scratched.
It's a very vibrant red underneath, I'm too curious not to try and narrow down the species.
view more: next ›
You don't at all see how that implies moral superiority? Or are you just giving them the benefit of the doubt?
The problem is holding China to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to.