_{you can fix her}

My argument is that not liking China does not imply liking the US.

No claims it does, so who are you arguing with?

liberals not explaining the excruciatingly obvious to us challenge: impossible

Did you know that also:

• Only one thing can be bad.
• Only the other thing can be bad.
• Neither thing can be bad.

If you don’t have an argument, then don’t pretend to make one.

If you don’t believe there is a way through—even when you can’t yet see the light at the end of the tunnel—then there is no project.

If you don’t engage with the world as it really is, then you’ll sabotage your efforts to see the project through.

My guy, I didn’t bring up “whataboutism,” you did. It’s not a topic I “jumped directly to,” you did. What I did was point you to an intervention on liberals‘ abuse of the term as a thought-terminating cliché, which you obviously didn’t engage with at all. Instead you repeated the same tired BS that the Citations Needed episode dissects.

deleted by creator

Again, nobody thinks Russia is socialist or communist, so again I don’t understand why the obvious keeps being pointed out to us. Everyone knows it’s a capitalist oligarchy, which every capitalist state is.

Which doesn’t mean anything when it comes to pointing out what China and Russia have done.

And there’s the rub. While China—and especially Russia—are not utopias, there are large discrepancies between what you think they’ve done and what they’ve actually done, between what you think they are and what they actually are. Relatedly there are discrepancies between what you think we are, meaning the imperial core states, and what we actually are. If you understood what we are, then you’d understand why China & Russia act in the ways that they do when dealing with us (to the extent that you do understand what they do, because don’t forget the first discrepancy).

But I’m not going to rehash that territory. Instead I’d suggest starting by developing real media literacy[1][2][3] and then investigating them yourself, if you have the time & motivation to.

But that doesn’t seem to happen, just attack attack and whataboutism.

Citations Needed podcast:
Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy

Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.

But what if “whataboutism” isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term “whataboutism” has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.

There are ten thousand Linux distributions—some of which are shit—and only one FreeBSD.

No one thinks they do, and everyone knows that “two things can be wrong/true at the same time,” but for some reason liberals can’t stop “educating” us on the matter.

There’s no reason to be rude, and no one brought up furries but you.

No one believes US is lying about China and DPRK.

Then everyone is a sucker.

• We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
• The Mighty Wurlitzer
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion
• Previously

I guess I should have expected deflection and “appeal to hypocrisy” when naming authoritarians.

Can you be any more a Redditor?

This conversation has already been had out a thousand times here. You brought nothing new to the conversation—in fact you brought nothing—so I can’t be bothered.

But, you indirectly proved my point - authoritarians are belligerent.

That wasn’t a point you made, and that’s not what belligerent means in the context I used it.

Has he always been like this? It reminds me of goat, pj, and cm002’s shameless greasiness.

Sarcasm is not an argument, and we do have evidence for every genocide in modern history, because it’s impossible to hide one.

Trump’s regime is like every tin-pot authoritarian ever. Lies about everything, hides losses, and makes up “victories”.

These are in no way specific to Trump or “authoritarians.” Many—probably most—belligerents do those things.

Same shit Putin, the Kim Jongs, or even Castro did.

https://lemmygrad.ml/c/alwaysthesamemap

Seven dirty words > https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UYKYIYVuZ7s

1. shit
2. piss
3. fuck
4. removed
5. removed
6. motherfucker
7. tits

And that feature is disabled by default instead of enabled as with PieFed.

Previously:

“Genocide denial” isn’t a magic spell. Do you not deny the genocide of white South Africans?

Also, do you think we haven’t gone over the Wikipedia entry with a fine-toothed comb already?

Previously:

The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.

The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.

Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves.
https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330 #HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.

• The Uyghur Human Rights Project is a product of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is the American government’s main regime change NGO.
• A Reddit AMA Claiming To Be A Uyghur Quickly Exposes A CIA Asset Slandering China
• The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified
• Uyghur genocide allegations
• American Debunks All Major Western Propaganda on Uyghurs and Xinjiang
• US-Funded Uyghur Activists Train as Soldiers of Empire
• The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent

Previously:

Genocide is more than just killing, it’s the deliberate destruction of a people including its culture and institutions.

(a) Show me the Uyghur bodies

(b) Show me the serious bodily or mental harm

(c) Show me the conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part

(d) Show me the measures intended to prevent births within the group

In accordance with China’s affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups were subject to different laws and were usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas.

(e) Show me the forcible transfer of children from one group to another group

violent incidents in East Turkestan

I wonder where those Salafi terrorists came from? Oh right: the US, UK, and Israel organized, funded, and trained them, as they did Al Qaeda and the various flavors of ISIS/ISIL, including the “moderate rebels” that just took over Syria. The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent.

I’m diagnosed with basically everything from donkeybrains to cretinism and couldn’t care less about this kind of language.

This isn’t about you.

Why do you?

This isn’t about me.

Do you think other people disregarding atypical minds as less valuable changes their value in any meaningful way?

I see; you’re just sealioning.