Banned from Lefty Memes for not agreeing with the complexity of Stalin having to ally with Hitler to invade Poland.
9mon 13d ago by lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/Grainne in yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Apparently I'm now a shitlib for not buying into this disgusting tankie propaganda that it was all the Wests fault and Stalin had to ally with Hitler.
For a mod who loves to ban others for bad jacketing, they sure have no problem doing it to other anarchists.
The Ban:
The Context:
Seems like a bad call to me too, PTB. I'll reverse the ban.
I love how all tankie defense boils down to "dO yOuR OwN ReSeArCh"
Where "your own research" means "Cowbee's research."
agree blindly with our threadbare propaganda or you're a sheep!!!
What is cowbee? Google isn't helping
An infamous tankie on Lemmy
A blatherer whose every response seems to involve trying to get someone to read a book that i'm starting to suspect they wrote, or are actually a fourteen year old who read their first thing that Spoke to them.
Cowbee did not write Blackshirts and Reds. Lol
Def the funniest part of the post
They are too exhausted by all their research to form proper arguments. 🙂↕️
I did my own research and it disagrees with tankies' conclusions. Now what?
Then you've been brainwashed with western propaganda is they're their usual go to
And also they're Russophobic, Sinophobic, a total shitlib, and most of all, banned for Rule 1 and 2 (having a dissenting opinion)
I was raised and educated by people who grew up in USSR. If it was a paradise like tankies claim, those people would know.
Yeah they really don't seem to realise that this is a thing in living memory. As in there are people who walk among them who were actually alive when the USSR existed.
Now you're a banned shitlib!
They're too used to banning dissent from their online spaces that they don't have a clue how to actually make an argument that holds any water or without resorting to bad faith tactics. Their arguments never hold up to scrutiny.
Tankies need their safe space for same reasons as Nazis.
Damn that sounds a lot like MAGA
Tankies and MAGA have more similarities than differences. The only real distinction is which authoritarians they worship.
Wish it was only tankies. But with them, there's the additional implication that all aspects of Soviet history should be public knowledge, and if you do not know these things that alone makes you a ... reactionary? capitalist bootlicker? Something like that.
My experience with these people is that they are extremely selectively informed about Soviet history. So ironically, they are actually quite ignorant on the topic, but they expect only their very specific cherry-picked facts and interpretations to be well understood by everyone, but none of the context or intervening events that might paint the USSR as anything other than the most benevolent organization in all of history.
That is very probably more true than what I wrote.
Sorry but this is PTB. Criticizing Stalin and the USSR doesn't make one a liberal. Wtf.
Just for context, won't really engage further with this: I take 0 issue with people criticizing Stalin, the USSR etc. I'm not a Stalinist, ML nor MLM.
It was only for that specific insulting comment and claiming the USSR outright allied with fascist Germany. Literally every day that kept Germany from fully carrying out Generalplan Ost and Operation Barbarossa in general saved countless lives and allowed for proper industrialisation, later allowing a war effort at all.
I do not have any interest in engaging with people using that tone and straying from proper discussion (again, 0 problems with people trying to discuss things even if erroneous) and do not want them part of the com, it's as shrimple as that.
I took no issue with OP of that specific thread.
You banned me for being a shitlib, not for being 'insulting'.
Because it read like a shitlib take ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: and shitlibs usually are insulting too
Is "shitlib" not insulting?
But not you. You'd never be insulting to anyone.
The fact that you would post this and think it seems like a reasonable thing to say is really something.
Just want you to know how fucking weird you look outside of whatever bubble thinks this behavior is normal. It's actually funny how far a powerless person will take their small taste of power and just show every piece of their ass.
I love it, you are a motley fool with admin tools.
So it's okay to ban someone arbitrarily because you deem it a "shitlib take"? Yikes.
not a tankie
cites cowbee
Pick one.
PTB and on the basis of blatant misinfo as well. Disappointing
what does ptb mean?
thank you, i will check out the sidebar
The sidebar lists the most common acronyms of this community.
thank you, i will check out the sidebar
PTB, Defending stalin for siding with nazis is crazy
Defending Stalin, period. Is crazy. He arguably killed more people than Hitler...
true, idk why ur getting downvoted
Because tankies don't like it.
I'm banned from there for publicly calling out one of the mods for covertly supporting the American right-wing. I deserve the ban, let's be clear, I intentionally went out of my way to spam warnings across the community. That said, the moderation of that comm seems to be getting worse since I was last there.
PTB.
Edit: To be clear, this was the same moderator, who seems to be the head moderator, and in light of this, it now seems clear that they weren't just supporting the American right-wing, but moreso supporting any and all totalitarianism.
Ah ha, but you forget that Stalin was busy murdering the last of the military officers that won the Revolution.
Linking to anything Cowbee said as "fact" is insane.
Haha that name rang a bell that was one of the first people I ever blocked on Lemmy :)
Calling this one a PTB, it's not a shitlib thing to not ask the USSR to have not temporarily partnered with Nazi Germany.
Just remember, whenever you read, "social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism," you are reading part of the justification for why the USSR should sign a treaty with Nazi Germany. The actual justifications for this are complicated, I think it is actually not completely straightforward such as "Nazis bad, treaty with Nazis make USSR fascist." However that is exactly the sort of campist and obscurative reasoning that Stalin tries to make. The argument was not "the USSR is still critically underdeveloped next to the most industrially advanced country in Europe, and we need some time to industrialize before we can oppose European fascism." It was, "The social democrats in Europe are worse than Nazis, so the Nazis need time to crush their moderate wing."
You can kind of understand the Real Politic of Stalin. It's the same justification for the endless purges of his political enemies. I think that the historical basis for authoritarianism extends beyond the "great man." But the guy was probably the greatest historical revisionist of the last 150 years. Both his enemy Leon Trotsky and Trotsky's one-time secretary Reya Dunayevskaya meticulously documented how Stalin had history literally rewritten to make him seem like a more revolutionary figure than he was.
I recognize that Trotsky doesn't have a good rapport with anarchists, nor should he, after 1921. But If any leftist tradition "weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living," it is the legacy Stalinism.
Before 1941 everyone collaborated, appeased, or worked with the Nazis in some form. And then 1941 happened and the Holocaust.
Rather than this being a lesson for future generations of why Nazis cannot be collaborated, appeased, or worked with: it seems as though this is some ace up the sleeve for catching modern debatelords for apparently being inconsistent.
Generally I think if you're using terms like 'shitlib' you're losing ground, and of there's someone saying 'tankie' there is unlikely any common ground to be found. Accurate or no, the first one to use either term is usually in the wrong, imo.
Before 1941? I assume you mean before 1939?
I don't think there's any equivalence in saying "if you invade Poland we are going to declare war on you" and then doing so (as France and Britain did) and literally teaming up with Hitler to invade Poland (as the Soviet Union did).
Appeasement was a weak strategy but the idea was less that war needed to be avoided at all costs and more that war with Hitler was inevitable but western Europe needed to buy a few months to try to catch up in rearmament. They were just a few months away from fighting the battle of Britain with biplanes.
1941 was when Germany invaded the USSR (and Japan attacked the USA), which I was marking as the last point in which any major/global power remained diplomatic, even neutral, with the Nazis.
Wild timeline take dude.
What's wrong about having a wartime ally and then declaring war on them?
I do that all the time in Total War. It's not a big problem if you have the armies to back up your chaotic strategies and if they complain, just wipe them out.
PTB. Would be nice to have the ability to vote ban them.
There was way more nuance to the situation. The moderator linked a summary of the false equivalence, as well as the extra context.
you showed up to be like: "fucked up, tankie defending Nazi alliance" as if history began and ended in 1939.
YDI, I can see how you ended up a 'world news' moderator though
On the topic of Cowbee's summary, one of the articles linked there is by this person. The article concerns the question of whether Poland was invaded by the soviets in 1939 link. I was curious about the author's argument, so I read it.
As it turns out, the crux of the author's argument was that the Polish government exiled itself to Romania on September 17th, and so the soviets could occupy eastern Poland because Poland technically had no government at the time. After all, it couldn't do anything from Romania, as it was a neutral country. EXCEPT the Polish government went to Romania AFTER the soviets invaded, and it was IN REACTION to the soviet invasion. So, because the author got the chronological order of events wrong, his argument kinda falls apart.
I don't want to suggest that the author doesn't know history, but I strongly suspect that he argues in bad faith by intentionally manipulating facts and omitting important information. I don't think you should treat this author as an authority on the topic, especially since this isn't his only outstanding claim that has been questioned by people versed in the field of Eastern European history. Among other things, he's also a Holodomor denier.
Their order of events seems kind of absurd... What, the government of Poland voluntarily left Poland so that the Soviets could come in and temporarily take over? LOL ok.
100% guarantee that pointing this out somehow turns into "well actually your history book is wrong because it was written in English." It's a comedy of fallacies with them...
I've argued plenty against the tankie nonsense. They blatantly ignore every historical fact that disagrees with their narrative. Like, Leftist parties were quite literally torn apart over the perceived Soviet-Nazi alliance. But in their eyes, it was always clear that Stalin, total genius btw, was just masterfully playing Hitler and his stupid Nazis and was just buying time, which btw he had to do because the Allies were so evil they wouldn't recognize that Hitler was a bigger threat to humanity than Stalin, which they obviously should have realised through the time machine in FDRs basement or something.
Recently that Yogthos fella did a similar thing, claiming the Baltic states voted in the referendum in favour of staying in the Soviet Union... in a referendum that didn't ask that question, and wasn't even held in the Baltic states. Funnily enough they never replied to that as they probably realised there was no arguing against that. Instead, they just downvote brigaded my comment.
That summary is terrible, though. It claims shit like the soviets "hated" germany / the nazis, ignoring shit like the Treaty of Rapallo wherein the violent suppression of communists by the German government (not yet the nazis, yes) was freely forgiven by the soviet union, and which played a huge role in the interaction between the Soviet government and the Weimar / Nazi governments. It also relies heavily on the writings of Grover Furr, a flag even redder than the Soviet's in any political discussion about the time period.
Grover Furr's credibility is best explained by this blurb from his wikipedia page:
Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history, especially the Stalin era, in which he has stated that the Holodomor, the 1932–33 famine in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, was not deliberate, describing it as a fiction created by pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists, that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazi Schutzstaffel and not the Soviet NKVD, that all defendants in the Moscow Trials were guilty as charged, that claims in Nikita Khrushchev's speech On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences are almost entirely false, that the purpose of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was to preserve the Second Polish Republic rather than partition it, and that the Soviet Union did not invade Poland in September 1939, on the grounds that the Polish state no longer existed.
Seriously, just go read Furr's site (it's incredibly difficult to parse due to how it's presented. He loves having multiple interlinked web pages with little context provided as to how the specifics relate, so fair warning that it's a slog.) The most blatant thing to point out is how he provides baseless in-text explanations of things like the meanings of specific language used in the M-R Pact which are completely unaddressed elsewhere in his explanation. It's maddening to see him treated as a scholar in this field, as though statements provided in inline parenthetical / editorial asides are somehow exempt from the need for citations or that anything he does is acceptable academic behavior.
Back to Cowbee though: they completely misrepresent the "4/5 of dead Nazis" statistic, ignoring things like:
- Troop allocations between the western and eastern fronts were wildly disproportionate
- The seven other countries that contributed troops to the war on the eastern front (and then assign credit for all those nazi deaths to the USSR, of course)
- That, thanks to the willingness of Nazis to surrender to the western forces, the western front captured more than 10x the number of Nazi soldiers they killed (~3,500,000 captured to 375,000 killed) which is a million more than the soviets killed (this does not include the additional 3.5million 'disarmed forces' since those are only somewhat admissible here and is a hugely complex topic on it's own)
There is a very real discussion to be had on how related, truly, were the two countries prior to the war, for example: They were close enough that the USSR even allowed the Nazis to run a tank training school, fighter pilot school and chemical weapons proving ground in their territory, which was closed soon after the reichstag fire as the political differences between the two countries became more solidifed as hitler rose to power). How much of that earlier cooperation survived? Important to discuss, and misrepresented by all sides in nearly all directions for an endless procession of political reasons. That solidification of differences is a truly fascinating topic and one fraught with complexity and intrigue and is a great subject to debate (in good faith), but the debate Cowbee is presenting is full of misinformation and absolute rampant bullshit from a king of misrepresenting history.
edit: misformatted link
edit 2: words are hard
About the tank school (not reading all this RN): It was for the Reichswehr, which was the army of the Weimar republic.
Also please read your own links, the 2nd paragraph of the wiki page reads:
Following the Nazi party's rise to power, the school was closed and Germany's Tank Force and Air Force were trained in Germany.
So you didn't even bother to read the 2nd half of that sentence, where I explicitly state exactly what you're calling me out for having excluded? Come on.
I even read the whole article and thus thought it regarded the school as a whole
Closure
In the early 1930s, the political situation for the tank school began to change. The Soviet Union opened itself to the West while Germany attempted a closer approach to France.[1]
In December 1932, Germany achieved being viewed as an equal at the Geneva Conference, making the secret schools somewhat unnecessary. With the rise of the Nazis to power in January 1933, the ideological gap between fascist Germany and the communist Soviet Union became too large and the tank school at Kazan was closed in late 1933
I'm honestly not sure what you mean. How does the article regarding the school as a whole factor into anything being discussed, or at all address how you were trying to present my arguments as lacking credibility because of an oversight in my citations based on a point I addressed in the same sentence?
The main reason for my original comment was the following:
They were close enough that the USSR even allowed the Nazis to run a tank training school [...]
Which again (intentionally or not) misrepresents historical fact. Weimar Germany was not at all the Third Reich...
This is a tedious and at-best-arguable semantic error on my part, since not only was it clearly in service of the future Nazi war machine (ex: Josef Harpe was a Nazi, and was one of the members of the school) and filled with then and future members of the Nazi party, the Nazis did run the school (and their rise to power lead to it's dissolution, the complexities of which were my entire point).
That semantic error does obscure how the Nazis gaining power directly caused the USSR to terminate the program. Which unfortunately allows for the misinterpretation that the USSR started a tank school for the Nazi regime. They started it with Germany because both entities at the time saw a benefit to defying Versailles. The German Communist Party wasn't yet outlawed and held like a quarter of the Reichstag at the time.
The failed strategy of the USSR was to undermine the victors of WW1, and hoped the communist wings of Europe would prevail.
They did not.
My point was that the situation surrounding the closure of the school was many-faceted. I appreciate you expanding upon that, though I fear you may have fallen into the same misunderstanding as they by fixating on your own interpretation of one phrase as critical, rather than the actual content of the message (that the complexity of the political motivations behind the creation and closure of the school was the reason I brought it up at all)
Yeah I wasn't really disagreeing as pointing out how even such a semantic thing can lead to big misinterpretations given the complexity of the whole period.
tankie punks fuck off
I'm actually an anarchist, but you're gonna use whatever pejorative makes you comfortable
You just like to say you are. You're anti-ukraine and from russia. You put up more tankie posts and anti-dem posts than anything critical of the repubs.
You're a tankie.
The reason I am often pissed at the democrats is due to how bad they are at actually opposing the republicans.
You're just a 'team blue' maga type
You’re just a ‘team blue’ maga type
What does that even mean? It's sure not an explanation for how the public record of your actions (and oft expressed opinons) appears to wildly differ from the values you're claiming to hold...
It means, "If I say this, you can safely ignore anything else I have to say"
I wish we could just ignore these people, but disinformation is contagious.
What does 'team blue' maga mean?
The guy I was responding to has in this very thread said:
In response to criticism of 'the west': 'you don't like it? leave'
Please move to russia or NK. You tankies enjoying western civ while shouting down at how evil we are, is rich.
That's like something I would unironically hear from a republican
Upholding 'western civilization' because capitalism somehow lifts people out of poverty, again this could easily come from a maga republican, this person just happens to be on team blue.
Western civ like it or not has pulled more people out of poverty than any other civ in human history
For me 'blue maga' are the people who are western chauvinists but act like they're above it all because they voted for 'the good guys' running the soul harvester.
It’s sure not an explanation for how the public record of your actions (and oft expressed opinons) appears to wildly differ from the values you’re claiming to hold…
Is being an anarchist somehow contingent on passing a geopolitical opinion litmus test? I organize with anarchists, I shit on the russian government all the fucking time for being a capitalist shithole. I shit on the US government all the fucking time for being a capitalist shithole. I happen to have ended up living in the US due to the various political upheavals in mine (and my parents) lifetimes. As a result I tend to criticize the US more directly as I am not a fan of my taxes getting turned into dead children abroad.
Lol you clearly don't know me, scan through my posts and see if you think I'm blue maga or whatever the fuck. I fall more on the social libertarian side than anything else. I'm very critical of the dems, but I'm not also a fucking idiot who thinks that the fascist shit pile we currently have is somehow the same as the dems by any means. The dems haven't gone full fascist... it's pretty clear they'd also not be destroying the US or harming it's allies...and would be supporting Ukraine. Something you clearly are against...so to me you're a tankie who sides with maga and fascist.
"Blue MAGA" is literally the singular best example of tankies parroting fascist rhetoric and is open evidence of their not so quiet collaboration. What a perfect parallel to the original topic of this thread!
"I'm not racist because Islam isn't a race"
Yeah you're pretty much what I would categorize as blue maga, chauvinist, racist, but team red 'disgusts' you. Clearly team blue would be managing the empire better so that it could stay 'great'
You seem to have an issue with anarchists too:
“I’m not racist because Islam isn’t a race”
Not to shine too bright a light on this, but you kinda have a habit of finding a single sentence that out-of-context supports your position and then jumping the gun by citing it. Did you read the immediately previous sentence, where they provide that quote as a clarification of their pro-palestine position and then go on to repeatedly defend Palestinian lives and decry the actions of Israel despite their (Palestinian) religion's general stance on the LGBTQ+ or other political and social issues? Here:
You don’t label a civilian death as a hate crime just because they’re a certain race or gender. So no you’re statement is blatantly false.
Honestly I don't know how well I'd get along with SupraMario (they were pretty islamaphobic a year ago and don't seem to know what anarchists actually espouse) - but this is beside that issue: it's aggravating as heck to see these comments. You're clearly intelligent, but you're just too eager to respond and it keeps making you look foolish. If you'd just slow down a little and get the context in which things are said, you'd be a much more persuasive advocate for your beliefs.
I'm not an Islamaphobic, I'm just not naive to think that Islam isn't less violent than other religions. I can support the people trapped under its weight, while still denouncing the religion...hell I feel that way against most religions because of how oppressive they are. This doesn't make me somehow a religious-phobic of one religion, I just don't like that people are naive of said religion because it's being currently at war with itself and anyone that doesn't agree with it, and tons of innocent people are dying under it. It doesn't give it a pass.
The Christian right is doing the same shit, sans the beheadings and stonings of women and LGBTQ+, here in the USA with removal of LGBTQ+/womens rights, and everyone is in agreement that it's fucked up...yet the same people will defend islam???
Please make that make sense.
I should say that after a review of your post history I'm quite sure we'd get along, I really only included that as an allusion to magnanimity. Religion is a difficult topic, all too often the discussion of any major trend amongst it is rebutted with specific examples of contrary behavior from a subset of the group. Maddening.
the original comment they responded to in that thread was this:
Israel is probably the nr. 1 murderer of trans people in the world right now. Get your priorities straight.
moving the goal posts to 'hate crime' doesn't change that point.
'Israel' and its US accomplices are the #1 murderer of trans people in the world right now, statistically speaking, even if it is indirect.
SupraMario can say that that israel 'sucks', but then redirecting to 'but hamas,' or 'Islam in general bad' doesn't bolster that position. Maybe they actually don't like seeing US taxes get turned into dead children, but considering how strongly they feel that the west is best I'm not holding out hope.
moving the goal posts to ‘hate crime’ doesn’t change that point.
This is like saying that Ukraine is slaughtering LGBTQ+ people because they’ve killed nearly 1/2 a million russian soldiers. You don’t label a civilian death as a hate crime just because they’re a certain race or gender.
They are not claiming that there must be a hate crime for something to be valid, just that the initial comparison is inherently foolish, and they are elaborating their position by using hate crimes as an example. It's a passable application of reductio ad absurdum.
SupraMario can say that that israel ‘sucks’, but then redirecting to ‘but hamas,’ or ‘Islam in general bad’ doesn’t bolster that position.
What Israel is doing is fucked, we should have stopped funding their damn military decades ago. What hamas and other jihadist are doing to people (women and LGBT persons mainly) in the middle east is also fucked. Both things can be true.
They explicitly clarify that their position is the direct opposite of what you're presenting it as.
You're doing it again, Diva.
You’re doing it again, Diva.
doing what? they do the same to me every time they roll up to call me a tankie.
the point was that the US and its Israeli proxy have the most dead trans people on their hands right now due to killing civilians indescriminately.
I don't see what the comparison to Russian soldiers gets you in that quote, you realize that a war is different from a genocide of a captive population, right?
The initial premise is that there's been many trans deaths in Gaza. This is undeniable - that's just statistics. According to Hamas, there's been about 65,000 deaths in the genocide thus far. So it holds that there have been a horrifyingly large number of trans Palestinians killed.
The new premise as presented by SupraMario is that this is not the most deaths of trans people due to a conflict in the world right now, due to the war in Ukraine. The best count of confirmed deaths for Russian soldiers in Ukraine is around 80,000 (it is likely much higher, as their casualties are about 10x that number - but this is a very conservative measurement using only russian figures). By the same assumption as above, many of those 80,000 dead were trans. That's just statistics.
80,000 is larger that 65,000
I'm not sure how the political situation leading to someone's death changes their gender orientation.
...
I'm sorry, I don't really know what to say beyond that. It's pretty self explanatory.
doing what?
You're seizing sentences entirely without care for the context and presenting them as evidence for your position. It reflects badly on your commitment to a good faith discussion, as it keeps happening, and has been repeatedly demonstrated.
there’s been about 65,000 deaths in the genocide thus far
That's the amount they've been able to confirm and count, not including all the indirect deaths caused by the enforced famine and widespread destruction of all civil infrastructure, it's in the hundreds of thousands.
it also feels like whataboutism, especially to have been bringing up military casualties in a peer conflict rather than a genocide of a captive population. Reducing them both 'conflicts' also kind of minimizes whats happening in Gaza.
It reflects badly on your commitment to a good faith discussion,
What good faith discussion? the one that started with people calling me a tankie?
So Hamas, the government managing this, can't be trusted to report on it's own citizen's deaths - but a 40-year-retired diplomat to japan is a credible source? (Btw no, that figure explicitly includes deaths by famine and related wartime deprivations. One second on google and you'd know that. Hamas are actually capable of counting the piles of their own dead children - they've had more than enough practice by now.)
And pointing out that a claim is, by their own logic, mathematically incorrect is not a whattaboutism. Come on.
Namecalling isn't the discussion I was referring to, though I'll grant that there's many conversational threads in this post so keeping them straight is a royal pain...
Btw no, that figure explicitly includes deaths by famine and related wartime deprivations.
of course it should, it's a captive population being exterminated by the US and 'Israel'
I honestly don't know how you people can exist in the world and be posting stuff like that. it's not a war, it's a concentration camp being emptied of people
Namecalling isn’t the discussion I was referring to, though I’ll grant that there’s many conversational threads in this post so keeping them straight is a royal pain…
So you agree with that number? So then... why try to discredit Hamas' ability to count, and why did you bring made up numbers into this? Why are you jousting at strawmen about "you people" when nobody here is denying the genocide is a genocide? Why behave like this at all, when all you do is discredit the causes you support with your actions?
It is embarassing that we're on the same side. You're doing more harm to our shared causes than all the good you've possibly ever done.
when nearly every hospital has been demolished it's not realistic to expect that their count is going to be the full picture. I don't know how else to spell that out to you, but the people who disappear under rubble or in the chaos of a hospital being destroyed aren't getting counted
It is embarassing that we’re on the same side. You’re doing more harm to our shared causes than all the good you’ve possibly ever done.
the feeling is mutual
Do you ever think maybe you should read your sources before you post them? This is like the tenth time you've done this.
65,000 deaths
We estimated 64 260 deaths
I truly appreciate you finding a source that so exhaustively backs up my / Supra's earlier claims, and for resoundingly disproving your own. Which wasn't even my goal, I don't even care, the actual genocide is much more important than the semantics you are hyperfixated on. Just move on, dude.
(You can't even think up a better retort than "No, u"?)
it's from June 2024, over a year ago, I hope you at least acknowledge that conditions have deteriorated and systemic errors in counting will remain.
on the report it says that the underreporting is ~40%, if that has continued or increased since then it means that the current stated number in 2025 is going to have a similar undercount. If it's 65k as reported by Hamas now then the real number is probably 40% higher.
This whole exchange stems from the statement that the The US/Israel have killed more trans people via this genocide than anywhere else on earth currently. The counterpoint was that "oh by that logic it's actually Ukraine killing Russians" by obsessing over the numbers rather than the power dynamics at play you tip your hand about where you really stand.
I don't take you seriously enough to continue this further, 'dude'
It's from June 2024
So you actually didn't read the article or understand the first thing about their methodology / conclusions at all, huh? Or maybe you just forgot to notice that my 65,000 claim is also a year old, because you were quoting a year old comment that used that number? So either the Hamas government was aware of the reporting issue and corrected it (which they publicly did...) or man they sure were good at guessing!
Yeah, I'm glad you're taking my advice to just move on. This has not been a great look for you.
(edit: Those edits.... oof. oof. It's rare you see someone trying to do a revisionist comment history)
Says the person literally doing a "but Ukraine, Nazis" so russia ok to kill and take over Ukraine.
I'm actually opposed to all inter-capitalist conflicts. Ukraine may have a bunch of Nazi gangs running wild, but I don't think it's 'ok' to invade. It just gets more people killed and the situation spirals out of anyone's control. I can understand the rationale, but there's also other motivations.
got any more thoughts to share about anarchists, or maybe thoughts about NATO destroying Libya or US invading Iraq?
I can understand the rationale, but there's also other motivations.
Lol what the fuck
Nazi gangs running around killing people with no prosecution is bad; a brave take I know. Invading to 'stop' them is also bad.
There's plenty of reasons Russian capitalists go along with the invasion and it's not because they're opposed to nazis on principle.
How is this difficult to understand?
Nazi gangs running around killing people with no prosecution is bad; a brave take I know. Invading to 'stop' them is also bad.
There's plenty of reasons Russian capitalists go along with the invasion and it's not because they're opposed to nazis on principle.
Fuckin tankies....none of this is fucking true at all. It's an excuse to invade... Ukraine had/has a large population of Jewish people living there calling it home. There were no nazi roaming gangs killing people without prosecution. The fuck did you get this from "russian tankie today"?
Yea that makes me racists because I'm not a hamas supporter while also not supporting Israel? Lol try harder.
Islam is a violent religion that doesn't support LGBTQ+ rights or womens rights...those are facts.
Islam is %100 transphobic and the main religion practiced there (98% of the population).
'not racist', you just have your finger on the pulse of the Islamic hive mind 👍
want to tell me more about how you feel about anarchists?
https://fiqhcouncil.org/fatwa-regarding-transgenderism/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_people_and_Islam#Public_opinion_among_Muslims
You really got some strong blinders on there.
funny how fascists trolls suddenly discover their pro-LGBT fibers when it comes to killing brown people lmao
Funny how tankies think the world revolves around them.
I see the entirety of your political knowledge is America
the person I'm replying to said that I was a tankie for being insufficiently critical of Republicans, go talk to them if you have an issue with people being US-centric
You're just a 'team blue' maga type
If I search for "maga house", "maga car", "maga outfit", I'm going to get some very specific images as a result.
Please show me an example of this "blue maga" in image form.
I hate to be defending a .ml user, and Diva of all people, but you asked so here you go:
All of this is going to get an anti-trans Democrat like Gavin Newsom elected to office. This is what people mean when they say 'Blue MAGA'. It follows the exact same "cult of personality" populist playbook as MAGA.
I would have to very much disagree that this is equivalent to:
I'm not a party line supporter by any stretch, but equating what you posted against... This nonsense... is, at best, misleading.
More accurately though, its outright disinformation to encourage people to believe an equivalence in the cult behavior that just doesnt exist.
I will happily change my mind when I see something remotely similar to the randomly selected images that come up immediately in the results that I just posted.
Until then, "blue maga" is just nonsense.
You tend to see it as much on Lemmy, but on Bluesky there is constantly people posting in support of Newsom as the presumptive nominee and yelling at any trans person they meet for not toeing the party line. The difference there is that the Democrats do have some folks, like Mamdani, that are clearly on the right side of history. But you have way more Schumer's that have absolutely zero conviction to call Trump out for what he's doing.
That doesn't make "blue maga" any more real though, nor does supporting Newsom (ew) in any way make them equivalent to the cult of maga.
I'm all for calling out the regressive policies and political figures who are clearly in the wrong on many topics, as well as pointing it out the truth to supporters, but I'm not into disinformation campaigns. That is the type of bullshit that got us here.
nor does supporting Newsom (ew) in any way make them equivalent to the cult of maga.
It fluffing does if you're trans!
I can only quote my trans friend/former coworker - "At least he isn't trying to have me killed".
I'm not here to debate Newsom, who I think sucks, his position on trans folks being one part of that. But again, calling him/his supporters equal to maga.... that I cannot do.
From the perspective of an Australian, where the Democrats would be considered right-wing, I just fail to see the distinction. If you want more information, go look on Bluesky.
I don't do bluesky, but I absolutely agree dems are right of center. The difference though is like saying "Drive east for 2 hours" and "drive east for 5 hours, catch a plane for a 4 hour flight, then drive another 2 hours".
Both terrible. One option is drastically worse though. There is a massive difference in policy (for the record, inclusive of the safety of trans folks) between the two, and it absolutely matters in FPTP elections. Unfortunately genocide isn't a major differentiator... Which is why we need to get away from FPTP, which is how we've gotten Mamdani on the ticket, NYC mayoral race is ranked choice. This is completely atypical unfortunately.
You don't have this problem in Australia, thankfully.
Also, there is zero equivalence in the images as shared. So I will continue to call out "blue maga" for what it is. Nonsense.
I'm not a member of those oppressed groups in the US that are aggrieved so I simply cannot put it eloquently. I really do implore you to go and read their stories. If not on Bluesky, there are other spaces. From where I'm standing though, it's pretty clear they aren't doing anywhere near enough to fight back against the complete destruction of institutions and the violation of the rights of millions of people and citizens.
My friend I mentioned is one of them.
She just moved this past winter, after more than 10 years of where she was. It was a purple city, she mostly felt that people accepted her or just ignored her if they didn't. When Trump became president in 2016, she felt uncomfortable as the ones who didn't accept her became more outspoken.
Those same people have become far worse, by February she told me she felt afraid at night. Terrified of walking alone, terrified of living alone, as the people who once ignored her started making absolutely awful comments. She became afraid that she would be beaten or worse.
She has since moved to a blue state in a blue city.
We agree, they aren't doing enough. The part I don't think you're understanding is that "not enough" is better than "beaten and maybe dead". With FPTP, we get two choices - shitty or horrifying. Suggesting that someone shouldn't vote for shitty because they could be better, and letting the outright horrifying come into power, that is completely unacceptable.
So you fight for better before the general elections. You work to see RCV (or other options, RCV just has the most behind it right now) provide better opportunity, or to get someone better in a primary.
Once its election time, though, you pick from the options you have. Protest voting in a risky town/district/county/state is may just make that horrifying person you do not want in get the win - its literally risking lives. We're seeing that right now with how the Trump admin, and the emboldened bigots, behave.
So, please understand that people who say "vote blue no matter who" are not saying "We can't do better!", but instead "We don't want people killed or put into concentration camps".
Just so you know, I chatted with my friend last night, and her direct response was - again - "They suck but they aren't trying to kill me, you know?". Personally, I'd rather her have a story to tell than to be disappeared or killed. She agrees, which is why she has worked with campaigns before and will continue to.
You can't make things better if you're dead.
I don't think most of the people talking about Blue MAGA think that they are currently in total control of the party the way that Trumpians are. I'd say it's closer to something like the Tea Party during the Obama years. It's the start of things, the pushing in the wrong direction, the cult of personality coalescing around people like Newsom, the abandonment of the fight for LGBTQ+ and especially trans rights. Heck, even things like doing absolutely nothing when they had the numbers to enshrine federal protections for Trans rights.
I think where the communication issue between you and I is coming from is you think I'm doing the "both sides are exactly the same" schtick. But what I'm talking about is other aspects. Yes, some policy stuff which is concerningly fascistic in nature, the march ever towards the right. But moreso the populism, the blind faith, and the lack of conviction for any meaningful message other than "we're not them".
I guess some of that has always been the case though. It's always been wild to me how party politics work in the US. The diehard nature of partisanship. Over here, no one outside of party members themselves has so much faith in any one party. Even the fact you have to declare voting intentions when you register is absolutely insane to me, it feels like such a massive violation of the secret ballot. But I guess that's what happens when you can vote third-party and still pick "the lesser of two evils" at the same time.
I think where the communication issue between you and I is coming from is you think I'm doing the "both sides are exactly the same" schtick
The problem is, the nonsensical "blue maga" is creating a false equivalence, railing against people saying "Vote Blue No Matter Who" does, in fact, push the "both sides" narrative. I get that you aren't intending it that way, but that is absolutely what people will read out of it, its what people do read out of it. There are magas picking up on it and reading it as "So clearly its fine for us, they do it too!"
So forget the politics itself for a second and look at the difference between what I posted and what you posted (even include what Diva posted). There is a drastic difference between the cult around Trump - people literally wrapping their cars, homes, even themselves in "TRUMP!" - and "Here are some stickers and shirts with no name on them" or even "Here's a random banner with Newsom's name on it, but explicitly making a reference to upset Trump".
These are nowhere near the same thing. Even this:
the cult of personality coalescing around people like Newsom
I would say is wrong. I don't think you're seeing a cult of personality around him, more accurate would be people rallying behind Newsom because he is doing more than others to directly work against Trump and the fascist administration. He sure as hell isn't anyone I'd want running the country either, but when it comes down to it...
the lack of conviction for any meaningful message other than "we're not them".
"We're not them" is unfortunately still too important. Not losing to fascists is far too important.
I think what you're seeing as a cult of personality around Newsom is a view skewed by media presentation (inclusive of here on Lemmy). My friend, for example, still uses instagram and all the other corpo nonsense out there - an entirely separate discussion - and will regularly share his posts and memes. I can tell you exactly what she'd say about him too, "He's a complete twat waffle". So why does she share it, why does she say "Vote Blue"?
Over here, no one outside of party members themselves has so much faith in any one party.
Its directly related to this. She has such little faith in the Democrats, and so do I, about so many things. What we are sure of though is that any Republican win goes toward a speed run in the wrong direction.
Even the fact you have to declare voting intentions when you register is absolutely insane to me, it feels like such a massive violation of the secret ballot.
A complete lack of proportional representation, FPTP rather than score/rcv/whatever, this is the core problem. Without this being resolved, strategic voting is key.
Undermining it with something that broadcasts as "Look they are the same!!" is just disincentivizing progressive voters, creating apathy, and effectively pushing for a Republican win. Lets be clear here - there is zero opportunity for a new party to spring up for the next general election or even midterms and have any degree of success. Even getting on a ballot as a third party can be a nightmare, even worse to get recognized as one, state-dependent.
But I guess that's what happens when you can vote third-party and still pick "the lesser of two evils" at the same time.
It would be great if that were an option here.
It isn't (yet). And if republicans stay in power, it likely won't be ever - just look at how Trump was pushing for redistricting to gerrymander their way to additional control.
So when I see "bluemaga", yeah, it pisses me off. In no way, shape, or form is "Vote Blue No Matter Who" remotely close to the cult that is maga, and there are reasons why people say to vote blue. For people I care about, its about survival. Still hardship that they do not deserve and should never have experienced in the first place, but they will survive to fight for better.
To me, that is far too important.
'shut up and vote blue if you know what's good for you, minorities'
I see a flag for Ukraine, the american flag, etc.
I don't see a picture of Newsom's face on a giant flag. I see the kind of banner thats been getting hung on an overpass for half a century.
I can't comprehend how you think those pictures look remotely the same.
I also don't appreciate the bonus made up racism you decided to add in there.
Edit:
Just to be clear, is this palestinian maga?
Because it just looks like people supporting the Gazans to me. Your "bluemaga" example looks remarkably similar. Can you clarify?
the sign they're flying says 'newsom's [dick] is bigger ' totally normal political messaging and nothing cult-like.
the trump overpass and the newsom overpass are both flying gadsten flags too, pretty much exclusively a right wing libertarian thing flown by chuds.
I agree thats weird, but its specifically related to what has been annoying Trump of late. Less about Newsom and more about trolling Trump.
Which I absolutely agree is weird messaging, btw. I hate this.
Thats not actually a gadsden flag though, if thats the one I'm thinking of. Note the extra text on top, that flag is poking fun at the gadsden flag wavers.
Which I absolutely agree is weird messaging, btw. I hate this.
it's so fucking weird, I hate it too
I think that's just a Gadsden flag, libs have been talking about 'reclaiming' it for months
Sweet milky cheeses that is disturbing. Contextually, clearly a response to Trump's use of AI, but what a shit choice of imagery....
it's so fucking weird, I hate it too
What I'm afraid of is not "blue maga", which I will stand behind my statement of "does not exist". Still not remotely hitting that maga territory.
No, what I'm afraid of is this style of messaging taking over politics for the future to come. Where it isn't about what the actual policies are, but memes and trolling bullshit.
I will stand behind my statement of “does not exist”.
I think the case I would make is that they are definitely emulating trumps style because they think it will help them 'win' same type of triangulation they always do.
we can set 'blue maga' aside as we're probably not going to agree on that, but there's absolutely a contingent of Democrats who see restricting trans medical care as a nonpartisan issue that they can work with Republicans on.
what worries me is how quickly they jumped to finding compromise positions with Republicans, at the expense of minorities who are expected to then vote for them or they get called 'pro Trump's as I so often get accused of.
I think the case I would make is that they are definitely emulating trumps style because they think it will help them 'win' same type of triangulation they always do.
I would agree that is Newsom's approach, and potentially the party leaders (though I think they are also incapable of doing it well, but thats a whole separate matter).
Edited to add: Btw, this is why I'm worried about the policy>soundbites>memes transition. Its going to lead to exactly the type of "fascist-friendly" compromises you're referring to, imo.
we can set 'blue maga' aside as we're probably not going to agree on that
Definitely agree to disagree :)
but there's absolutely a contingent of Democrats who see restricting trans medical care as a nonpartisan issue that they can work with Republicans on.
what worries me is how quickly they jumped to finding compromise positions with Republicans
And disturbingly damn true.
who are expected to them vote for them or they get called 'pro Trump's as I so often get accused of.
I will say I agree with both here, depending on timing. If we're talking at the general election - yes, a protest vote is fundamentally a pro-Trump vote. This is entirely a FPTP created problem, where the choice is between two dogshit options.
If we had proportional representation, ranked choice, approval, score, whatever, elections in the USA would be in a much better position for a whole host of reasons, but mostly because we wouldn't have this A/B restriction.
Before even any primary has happened? No, screw that, rip into them. Replace them with someone better if possible. Thats what I've been working toward with the WFP, the only 3rd party near me with anyone actually trying to run. Didn't work out last election but I'll keep trying.
Which was a long-winded and rambling way of saying - when it comes to FPTP, timing is important, and protest votes can be effectively a vote for the (much, much, much) worse option.
I do get the issue with FPTP, I wish we had something to break the stasis. I am in a blue state, some of our federal reps run un-opposed and it gives me a jaded outlook on electoral participation; the result has always been a forgone conclusion in my state since as long as I've been of voting age.
I usually vote third party as a vote of no confidence, but then people act like this is some battleground where you're literally the enemy if you don't vote the right way
Especially running unopposed, I entirely understand a protest vote. I do think too often everyone assumes everything is a battleground, to me the biggest concern is strategy. I absolutely loathe the "part time candidates" like Jill Stein for the record, who only ever shows up at election time, and does absolutely nothing outside of election years. Just grifters wrapped in a different color imo.
I also think too often people who live in a "safe state" underestimate just how much of a battleground others can be though, which is why I'm not a fan of considering all democrats to be the same either. The leadership sucks, and so, so, so many of the long-standing elected representatives do, but using the "D" next to your name under the current structure of voting is substantially beneficial, and fracturing the vote with a third party in a local/state/federal election by competing on who can be more progressive is flirting with the risk of losing out entirely to regressive fascists, which also really sucks for us.
I just hope we avoid the accelerationist timelines, which I think will be far more horrifying than most people realize. Maybe its from me visiting places that have seen civil war and devastation, but I'm really hopeful that we never have to see that here (and still get rid of the fascists).
I don't like the green party either at this point, I liked Ralph Nader when he ran because he actually had a track record of being critical of the automobile industry. I definitely haven't voted for them since though.
I've had enough relatives live through civil war and famine to not want to find out about it either. I'd like to think that cooler heads prevail.
ok tankie
When I first registered for the Lemmiverse (not too long ago) I almost chose lemmy.ml but somehow Mali did not seem the best fit for me.
I'm here because I figured it would be the fastest to deploy updates to the software
Because it's the server run by the developers?
Please move to russia or NK. You tankies enjoying western civ while shouting down at how evil we are, is rich.
The USSR killed millions even after the war, it was a shit place with dictators leading it. They were no better than the nazis. Stop rewriting history.
Just because we dunk on tankies here doesn't mean we approve of white... oops, sorry, I meant to say "western" - civilisation.
Okay?
Someone tell Japan they're white now.
Hey, don't slam it... Jewish people became "white enough" for the west as soon as they started slaughtering brown people - which proves that anyone with enough genocidal intent can reach those lofty heights!
Western civ like it or not has pulled more people out of poverty than any other civ in human history. It's hella flawed and it requires guidance to grow and get better but that's the whole damn point of a civilization.
You, anarchist, seem to think societies are going to magically swap over to hippie communities and everyone will share everything and be happy to not work ever again. It's like you assume a home can be built without a foundation. I honestly don't understand how it's popular to people over the age of 18.
Western civ like it or not
Yeah, all the shantytowns around these parts with sewage floating through the streets attests to that wonderful statement of yours.
get better but that’s the whole damn point of a civilization.
Your precious white... oops, sorry, meant to say "western" again... civilisation has had hundreds of years to stop being a laboratory for horror and deprivation - at this point, it's perfectly clear that all this is the point.
It’s like you assume a home can be built without a foundation
Not like you, huh? With your fancy foundation built on millions of corpses?
I honestly don’t understand how it’s popular to people over the age of 18.
Because not everybody over the age of 18 automatically degenerates into a spineless bootlicker - must be news to you, huh?
Every society has its horrors. People suck and people who don't usually aren't gravitated towards power.
Please explain how anarchist would magically make those who want to lead for power less likely to do so?
Every society has its horrors.
Not a valid defence - neither does it distract from your ludicrously false statements.
Please explain
What makes you think anyone here owes a colonialism apologist any kind of explanation?
Lol yea that's the excuse. No one owes our little bullshit plan for society an explanation. Move somewhere else please, just leave Western society since it's sooooo bad.
Lol yea that’s the excuse.
It's not an excuse, it's a question. It's fine... don't answer it - you ducking and diving it is all the answer we have ever needed.
If you don't want to answer that, perhaps try answering this one - how long do you think it'll take before people forget about the "west's" latest genocide over there in Gaza?
I asked you the question, and you dodged it with a bullshit whataboutism. Because you can't answer it.
You really think that a collapse of western civ will stop wars and death and make the world a more peaceful place? You must be huffing something really strong to believe that.
When do you think china will stop the genocide of the Uyghurs?
People are protesting and being arrested trying to stop the gaza genocide and it's in the news constantly. I don't think it'll stop being an issue for a good while. Israel is a state that should never have been built.
Now that I've answered your question, answer mine.
I asked you the question,
No... you demanded an explanation that you don't deserve. And you still don't deserve it.
Colonialism apologists don't get to demand anything here.
western civ will stop wars and death
Is that the best defense of white supremacism you can manage? "If we didn't do it, somebody else would have?"
Where did you get that? PragerU?
Israel is a state that should never have been built.
So now your "if we didn't do it, somebody else would have" schtick doesn't apply, eh?
So what about the white supremacist states that taught those Zionists the means and methods of "western civilisation," eh? The same white supremacist states that continue to fund Israel's genocide to the hilt?
Should THEY have been built?
No... you demanded an explanation that you don't deserve. And you still don't deserve it.
Lol so yea you don't have an answer because as typical you live in a little bubble that wouldn't ever work. Got it.
Colonialism apologists don't get to demand anything here.
Yea totally an apologist for...what? I've called out all the horror every country everywhere has done...
Is that the best defense of white supremacism you can manage? "If we didn't do it, somebody else would have?"
The fuck are you on about? First off... I'm not white. Secondly trying to conflate colonialism with white is dumb as fuck. You do realize that multiple ethnicities have done horrific shit to others right?
You gonna fit in there about Japan in WWII? Or China today? Or do those not count cause they're not west and white?
Where did you get that? PragerU?
Lol you really don't know who you're even arguing with.
So now your "if we didn't do it, somebody else would have" schtick doesn't apply, eh?
Lol how did you even come to that conclusion.
So what about the white supremacist states that taught those Zionists the means and methods of "western civilisation," eh? The same white supremacist states that continue to fund Israel's genocide to the hilt?
Lol you don't even know the history of fucking Israel lol
Should THEY have been built?
Ah more "I'm 18 and this is deep".
Kid, one day you might grow up and realize that not everyone will magically get along with a hippie commune
Lol so yea
Which part of...
Colonialism apologists don’t get to demand anything here.
...didn't you understand the first time around?
Yea totally an apologist for…what?
This you?
Western civ like it or not has pulled more people out of poverty
I could have sworn that was you, doing apologism for white - oops, sorry, meant to say "western" again - civilisation right there.
I’m not white.
So, again... is that the best defense of white supremacism you can manage? “If we didn’t do it, somebody else would have?”
Ah more
So white supremacist genocide is not okay as long as it's only Israel doing it?
Lol you must really be a teenager...listen kid when you do finally get out into the big world, you're going to realize not everyone is out to get you, and that people just want to survive. Not everything is a white supremacy conspiracy.
So, just for the record - this was YOU...
Western civ like it or not has pulled more people out of poverty
...blatantly performing apologetics for white supremacism, correct?
You aren't claiming that somebody put words in your mouth or hacked your account or blaming autocorrect?
Lol that's not being apologetic, that's literally the truth. You literally cannot back up any shit you have said because you think everyone who isn't some anarchist is magically a white apologist for capitalism. No where in any of my posts have I said the system is perfect. No where in any of my posts said it doesn't need improvement.
But your entire argument has been to deflect questions, and babble about white supremacy...
If you're unable to refute my points and answer my questions then we're done here. I'm getting bored arguing with someone who lives in a western society and thinks it and it's people are white supremacists. That's childish and shows why no one takes you seriously.
Soooo, just for the record - this is YOU...
Lol that’s not being apologetic, that’s literally the truth.
...doubling down on your blatant apologetics for white supremacism?