Just like the far-right of the west, they believe in rule by perceived merit. They just have a different idea of what merit looks like.

Unfortunately, rule by a small privileged class is oligarchy at best, fascism at worst, regardless of what system of merit you use to define who should rule. Not that they’ll ever grasp that.

.mk lives rent free in their heads.

9/10 times it’s someone from .ca

You don’t even need to work to find the projection. He just offers it up.

Canada has in fact deeply fucked up with it’s indigenous population, though the specifics of just how deeply the graves left by the residential schools go is something that seems to shift every time I dig into it. There’s no debate that the Canadian state killed a lot of indigenous people’s though.

However, that doesn’t have anything to do with correctly identifying the Russian disminformation machine. Even in some kind of “whataboutism” argument, Canada has legally taken blame for those deaths and created the entire Truth and Reconciliation movement to start trying to set things right. Comparing Canada saying aloud “we have fucked up and we want to fix it” to any state-run media in Russia is just laughable, at best.

Damn, man. Thank you for sharing, genuinely. I always appreciate the opportunity to learn of lived, firsthand experiences in these topics.

They’ve completely lost the plot in what left/right was intended to identify, and instead associate it with “the guys I like are left and the bad guys are right.”

They’re just just right-wing nationalists arguing for merit-based authoritarianism based off a different set of merits than the the white-christian nationalists of the west. Despite that, they have more in common with them then genuine leftists, who see the rule of any one party as invalid.

It sounds to me more that they think antisemitism is morally correct based on their aforementioned conspiracies.

Because apparently blaming the people committing the crimes isn’t enough. You need to perpetuate hate against an entire ethnic/religious group, otherwise your opinion is invalid as “Liberal tears.”

Anyone who looks at everything that is listed in the Epstein files and concludes, “this is why Judaism is bad,” needs to pull their head out of their racist ass.

The documentation on how China “solved” homelessness exists, mostly thanks to previous citizens that left.

Unfortunately, reliable modern information is scarce, because that’s what you get with an authoritarian regime obsessed with information control and social engineering.

The same can be said of America’s culturally in groups.

Unfortunately, thanks to authoritarian control of the media, it’s hard to tell exactly how many labour camps filled with “totally not homeless” people are propping up China’s economy.

They really need to stop devaluing the meaning of the word “racism.”

Equating the life of individual privilege that the leader of an autocratic nation lives with an oppressed minority is despicable. Even from the (completely dishonest) position that leaders like Kim Jong Un are actively making their countries better, there’s no perspective that allows one to depict someone in such a position of power as suffering akin to the murdered and marginalized communities that genuine victims of racism have to suffer through.

We hate Kim Jong Un because he’s a fascist, narcissistic piece of shit, warping the narrative in his own country to justify living a life of luxury while his people suffer. Race has nothing to do with it.

Okay, can I just derail this slightly to have a genuine conversation about what “racism” is here, for a second?

Racism is by and large when prejudice has become widespread enough that it disadvantages a group. Academically, when people research racism, they’re not worried about individual prejudices, they’re worried about collective prejudices that create additional challenges in people reaching prosperity. This is where admittedly misguided statements like “you can’t be racist against white people” come from, as you may dislike white people all you’d like, but globally and within any country in the Western sphere, they’re the ones in power.

So, that in mind, what are people trying to argue when they call it “racist” to associate Xi with Winnie the Pooh? There’s the obvious intended issue in that Pooh is yellow, and throughout history racist epithets around the colour yellow have been used to describe Chinese people. And absolutely, in those cases where they were a minority, ie a Chinese immigrant coming to North America, such language is unapologetically racist. They’re a disadvantaged “out” group, and this language is used to further other them and create a negative public perception. It’s not hard to see how that’s racist.

But we’re not talking about Chinese people as minorities in other countries. In fact, we’re not talking about Chinese people at all. We’re talking very specifically about the president-for-life of one of the most powerful nations in the world. Nothing anyone we’re speaking to can say or do anything to disadvantage him. Even if you want to argue that a given person dislikes him due to racial prejudice and nothing more (which is absolutely a shitty thing to do) there’s nothing “racist” about that prejudice, persay.

Now, I’m not so delusional as to think that the academic understanding of racism and the colloquial concept of racism are one in the same. Obviously, drawing a divide between academic racism and racial prejudices is splitting hairs outside of, well, academic study. But my concern becomes this: aren’t we diminishing the problems with genuine racism when we engage with asinine ideas like “portraying Xi as Winnie the Pooh is racist”? Large scale systematic oppression is a real widespread issue that has disadvantaged, and in some cases all but erased, many cultures all over the world. Native populations of Canada and the US, African populations abused by the colonial powers, the Ugyhurs in concentration camps in China… Those are good examples of racism. People who engage with language and attitudes that continues to perpetuate those crimes are racist.

To this day, the economic power and social mobility of these social groups are severely disadvantaged from a history of racism, and we’re going to conflate that with pictures of Winnie the Pooh because it offends one of the most powerful people in the world? I don’t buy it. This whole take is purely brain dead tankie bullshit from people who are attempting to construct a moral highground. If they were genuinely concerned with the problem of racism, it is not the hill they’d die on, and they’d at least recognize the difference in harm. But they don’t, because it’s not an honest argument to begin with; it’s just more tankie propaganda.

And a quick shout out to anyone who stuck with me long enough to read this. It’s been jostling around in my brain for a while, and I’m glad to try to finally put the scattered thoughts into words.

This is the most deranged thread I’ve ever chosen to scroll through on here.

You can be against two genocides. Being against one genocide doesn’t make you for another. This is not a challenging moral conundrum. Anyone trying to paint this as “you either want to kill all Israeli’s, or you want to kill all of Palestine” needs some kind of social-emotional-moral help and development, at the least.

In other communities, I’d agree. In a community dedicated to exposing their lies? I think I see it as a “give them enough rope to hang themselves” situation.

Though I absolutely take your point.

Honestly, they get downvoted and mocked into oblivion, while simultaneously demonstrating the purpose of this community. Why ban them?

I’ve seen some incredibly stupid Tankie takes around here, but this might be the most completely dissassociated, idiotic trash I have ever seen come out of any of their mouths. It is the picture of “our heroic adventurers; their british invadwrs” meme.

“Both Imperialist genocides were bad.” “We elevated the native peoples (when we destroyed their cultures and killed anyone who resisted); you’re denying genocide.”

Anyone who reads that comment and doesn’t immediately smell the hypocritical bullshit needs help, either developing critical thinking skills, or getting away from the brainwashing they’ve consumed.

If your definition of leftism doesn’t include queer acceptance, then I’m not interested in your version of leftism.

Any version of bringing the people together to make the world better for the people cannot discriminate based on sexuality. Doing so is to create a multi-tiered citizenship and awarding privilege based on perceived merit, which is right-wing ideology.

Queer groups have been an oppressed group for most of history, which has decidedly placed them into oppressed economic classes, and the culture they developed is a result of that. To dismiss queer acceptance as “culture war,” is to position sexual identity as choice, and to ignore their history of oppression and erasure.

“Leftism” that segregates citizens by sexual orientation, or other identities and backgrounds for that matter, is fascism by another name.

They’re conflating anti-authoritarian with anti-communist because it suits their narrative.

Imagine unironically posting these comments in communities that notoriously ban people for wrong-think.

Shit like this really makes me question if they can genuinely be this stupid.

You know, I don’t think this is what OP meant, but yeah, King Fury is qualityslop.

But autopen was a problem.