Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

  • JohnDClay
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You mind providing sources? (Also bold of you to assume I’m even a lib, I might be capitalist swine!)

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      (Also bold of you to assume I’m even a lib, I might be capitalist swine!)

      This moron doesn’t know what a liberal is, or even that he is in fact a liberal.

      (those are the same fucking thing mate, Liberalism is the ideology that underpins capitalism, the ideology of free markets)

            • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              48
              ·
              1 year ago

              His name is Adrian Zenz, a middle aged German man who doesn’t speak the Uighur language or Mandarin or any Chinese language and has never been to China

              He’s a devout conservative evangelical Christian who has gone on record saying he believes he is on a mission from god to destroy the PRC

              If you did enough research on your links to find the original sources for each of your sources you would find almost all trails lead back to him

              I find it especially funny a German his age would be throwing around accusations of genocide, I wonder what his father did during the 1930’s and 40’s

                  • JohnDClay
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What do you mean? I was referring to the satellite imagery of the reeducation camps as corroborating evidence he couldn’t have fabricated. Unless you’re saying he did?

                • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  31
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  let’s say these claims are true. let’s “steel man” your argument and just ignore all our reservations and concerns. Let’s begin by ignoring all evidence pointing towards exaggeration/malfeasance by western “news” sources citing state department propaganda about a clear US enemy during a time of increasing tension, and let’s just say yes, ok, you’re right, China is genociding Uyghur Muslims. What are you advocating be done in response to that? An invasion by NATO of a nuclear armed power that nearly all NATO countries rely on economically in order to stop the genocide? That would mean WW3, at the very least.

                  How about America, before it can claim any moral high ground over China, before shedding crocodile tears about what its geopolitical rivals are supposedly doing, to justify some kind of intervention supposedly on behalf of Uyghurs, close down its fucking ICE camps and guantanamo bay and the CIA black sites and get its CIA agents out of the middle east and stop buying the products of this alleged genocidal slave labor from China which is used to manufacture cheap goods for US consumers? All of this is so clearly in order to manufacture consent for some kind of military action, whether true or not. Also let’s be real, none of this concern trolling about Uyghur Muslims strikes me as genuine, at all. The US just got done bombing and occupying 8 different muslim majority countries from 20 years with its “war on terror.” And before/during that so-called “war on terror” the US was arming/training far right religious extremists (Mujahideen, precursors of the Taliban) as a proxy force against the USSR in Afghanistan, and far right religious extremists and separatists (ETIM) as a proxy against PRC. The US government has never cared about Muslims. They’re just pretending to as a way to pivot from fucking with the middle east towards fucking with BRICS.

            • EmotionalSupportLancet [undecided]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              36
              ·
              1 year ago

              How the fuck do you not know who Zenz is? Have you done zero actual attempts at research? Did you think citations were just an extended bit in the forum signature line? Try clicking on those once in a while.

              • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                22
                ·
                1 year ago

                We know who Zenz is because we read sources Liberals send us. Liberals do not know who Zenz is because they do not read the sources they send us che-smile

            • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              36
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s a running joke how all the citations about the genocide all point back to this guy who is a rabid white supremacist and the sole source of all of the worst allegations.

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I thought libs were liberals, often leaning socialist. And the Republicans were the capitalists.

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          49
          ·
          1 year ago

          Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Liberals and republicans, conservatives, liberatarians, fascists you’re all libs.

          Marxists, Socialists do not support capitalism. There is no such thing as liberal socialist

            • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I suppose that’s fair.

              Fascism doesn’t have an intellectual tradition, or higher principle outside of serving capital and upholding liberal property relations amd hierarchies. So i suppose that’s why i lump them in with the rest of the libs.

              Am I i completely off base with this? Is it a gray area, or a clear break?

            • I also think this is wrong. Fascism is baked into the borders of liberalism. Liberalism isnt abandoned, it’s just the face of liberalism which always faces outside now needing to turn inward. There’s never been a single instance of liberalism that didn’t either 1. Have the outward facing fascism like the US to indigenous peoples or now towards the periphery or 2. Was the outside but with a government which accepted the periphery status and invited the expropriation as long as the class in power got to too.

          • JohnDClay
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’d better tell them that then. I’m sure they’ll be happy to know that it’s impossible to be socialist and only want to curtail businesses.

              • JohnDClay
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

                • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  31
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  On the one hand we have the academically accepted definition. On the other we have yours. Why do YOU get to define it?

                • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  31
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

                  Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.

                  They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.

                • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  31
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it’s used internationally the way we use it here.

                  • JohnDClay
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren’t liberal by the international general definition?

                • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  30
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Socialism was developed as an intellectual tradition in opposition to liberalism. I didn’t define it

                  The people who invented liberalism defined it. Take that up with Rousseau and Locke, et al.

                  • JohnDClay
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    But definitions change over time as people use the words differently. Except French where the government gets to decide what words mean.

                • CloutAtlas [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s literally the definition of liberalism outside of the US, lol.

                  The right wing party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. The center left is Labor, the left wing is the Socialist party.

                  In many European countries, Liberals (or Liberal Democrats) are right wing.

                  Liberals are only equated to the left in the US, which is yet another reason that USA BAD.

        • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          One of the many goals of us propaganda is to deny you a an understanding of political theory.

          Liberals are not socialists. It is impossible.

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity

        That isn’t exactly a glowing endorsement. Plus it makes sense there isn’t absolutely overwhelming evidence for it, China is keeping it pretty locked down.

        • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          44
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isn’t exactly a glowing endorsement.

          No it’s not, and nobody expects these actors to give a glowing endorsement, but with what they get away with conceding this point shows something.

          Plus it makes sense there isn’t absolutely overwhelming evidence for it, China is keeping it pretty locked down.

          Already refuted your link “in response to” (not really) the site I shared on this topic, which also touches on this point, so you’ve confirmed again that you haven’t read it.