hammertime, just now:

Once you learn how to CODE, you’ll realize how dumb it is to blame everything on AI.

Not ML, but you mean like that? Glad I could help.

Or, you know, you check the sourcing and realize:

according to a report by the Dharamshala-based independent radio station Voice of Tibet (VoT).

And so you check their about us page and find:

It was founded by three Norwegian NGOs; The Norwegian Human Rights House, The Norwegian Tibet Committee and Worldview Rights. The project has been funded through donations from supportive organizations and private individuals.

… and start to wonder, as this dosn‘t seem very homegrown, why‘s the west involved here? So you check Wikipedia and find:

It receives funds from the United States National Endowment for Democracy.

And you might wonder, oh what‘s that and you check them out and realize, that the NED is a known CIA operation being directly funded by the US government and exists:

with the stated aim of advancing democracy worldwide and countering communist influence abroad by promoting political and economic institutions, such as political groups, business groups, trade unions, and free markets.

🦅 Hurr Durr! Democracy! Freedom! 🦅

Extra source, but be careful, it‘s from the evil Chinese government: Fact Sheet on the National Endowment for Democracy

Ya, you just got rage baited by US propaganda to be more angry at China. GJ, be proud! Keep on hating on the evil leftists from ML, lol.

Maybe, also avoid @RandAlThor@lemmy.ca posts, because they keep posting exactly this kind of shit.

So you never learned basic English? And now you have to refer to your passport in order to be able to distinguish men from women? lol, sure bro.

Man/men, woman/women, people, humans.

Male and female are adjectives to describe sex. Man and Woman are cultural gender roles, which would be the right choice here.

Probably a bit complicated in some cases, as all this a a fairly recent cultural topic and some people actively struggle with a changing culture that‘s not strongly patriarchal, but either way, male and female is something you use maybe in more clinical or scientific settings, i.e. a female human.

Using female for woman is a bit like using „Weib“ in German.

The basic law dictates compulsory military service, but that has been suspended for a while now, because after the fall of the Soviet Union the need for that went down, the Bundeswehr was of little relevance.

The basic law also grants you the right to refuse the service for conscientious reasons (like not willing to kill, religion). Usually in those cases you‘d end up doing some substitute civilian service, anyway, if otherwise you‘d be fit for military service.

What‘s happening now is, that Germany is gearing up for war against Russia. Militarization is in full swing, money is funneled towards military spending, as well as infrastructure spending that benefits the military (west-east axis to transfer equipment and units), all while spending on social, cultural and educational sectors is being cut.

And with that the state has a renewed interest in human military stock that would be available, if that war actually happened.

So the suspension is cancelled and slowly, but surely, the younger generation will be compelled to join the compulsory military service. And you‘re right, for changes in the basic law, you would need a two thirds majority.

Now here comes the „conscientious reasons“ into play, because the threshold of what counts as such is defined through normal laws and these can be changed more easily (simple majority, I believe).

Basic law defines: „you can refuse for conscientious reasons“; normal law defines: „what actually is a conscientious reason in case of refusal“.

So the problem here is, that citizens are granted the right to refuse, but the state dictates the conditions on what counts and what not.

In practice the state will create the conditions to get the amount of people into the military, they think they need. Against the will of the individual, if need be.

So the youth is protesting against compulsory military service because of gender inequality, that‘s your take here? I wish you‘d just not comment at all, if you have no idea, what you‘re actually talking about. That‘s really the dumbest take I‘ve heard, yet.

Also, if anything: „If you‘re a young girl woman“, because I do hope you‘re not talking about child soldiers, but are merely a sexist dipshit.

Schönen Frauentag.

Point three is just you freestyling thoughts now. I just read of the Laconia Incendent and besides how fucking grim all of this is, ya, there actually are more honorable procedures and lengths to go through, other than straight up and purposely killing everyone. But that‘s just not how the US roll‘s.

How do you think the museum makes sure you don‘t touch or steal the exhibits, which you don‘t own and never will, but only are there to sell the tickets, clean the floor or walk around in nostalgia?

And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it?

Don‘t do this lame ass shit, where I‘m now supposed to argue in favor of human rights violations. That‘s not the point. You‘re shifting the discussion. Bad faith argumentation is for losers.

My points are quite clear:

1. NATO is not the world police, but in contrary acted against international law by bombing a sovereign state. Accusing other countries for not acting or vetoing only works, if you have a western chauvinist perspective (yes, you do seem to have that), that bombing a country and its people is the rightful and just solution. (Only true, if the West does it, right?) (Also what‘s happening in Iran right now)
2. NATO did not bomb Yugoslavia to pacifiy it, but to force regime change, balcanization and to expand their sphere of influence, so for geopolitical reasons, not for moral reasons. It strengthened the hegemonic power of the USA in territories of the former Soviet Union. Possible human rights abuses were an excuse used as a propaganda tool, not the reason, just like every time the US is involved (like right now with Iran).

Either way, NATO was the aggressor with no mandate to bomb a sovereign state. They acted against international law and did some human rights violations themselves, while they‘re at it.

Are you able to agree with (at least some of) these points without reacting with strawmen or whataboutisms?

You’re almost there! In fact (…)

I never said that there are no other bad actors, that‘s bad faith argumentation. I‘m also not going to give you a China bad! Russia bad! nod, just so you can further feel validated in your restricted horizon. That’s coping, you cope, hard. The West is the world‘s cancer.

Organize! This does not need to be a dream or a utopia. Systems fall, changes are always possible. Only, the ultra rich with their frivolous desires won‘t give up their privileges and power because we ask nicely.

The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.

If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.

But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.

The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence. If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.

Also not a technicality, lol.

Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.

But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.

The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.

Volant Media is strongly biased towards the west and not a trustworthy source.

The world’s leading news networks on Iran and Afghanistan

From our studios in London and Washington, and supported by a global correspondent network, we deliver editorially independent news and analysis. We cover breaking news, finance, sports, and documentaries, reaching over 100 million viewers.

They‘re also absolutely intransparent in regards to their funding.

The channel is backed by a Saudi-British investor with ties to the Saudi government, According to The Guardian, Saudi Arabia has provided a 250-million-dollar fund for Iran International in 2018, but Iran International’s management claims the independence of its editorial operation and denies a link to any government.

Expect nothing but intellectually dishonest spins by such orateurs.

Thanks for proving OP‘s point.

Kremlin spokesperson here, I also checked bossito’s mastodon: A bit of identity politics and unfettered support for western imperialism — they’re a liberal.

In this thread bossito is appeasing to neo-nazi narratives and repeats anti-communist propaganda in form of the red fascism trope.

People who do that will historically enable actual fascist rule, because they‘re so damn scared of communists, that they‘ll excuse reactionary action every time, while condemning anti-fascist, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist action until every actual leftist voice is silenced.

Checking mastodon, I find (translated):

„Between the Islamo-fascism of the French left and the Christian fascism of the right, let the devil come and choose. But defending the murder of unarmed people on the streets of France today (in peace and still in democracy) is pure fascism. Whether it’s decorated with a swastika or a hammer and sickle, it’s fascism.“

Bossito also pinned an article supporting Hasbara narratives, further exposing their racist Israel-apologia. They are not left in any actual sense. They are a bootlicking liberal draped in European nationalism and western chauvinism — ready to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian and to subjugate every barbaric Arab for his own superior European identity.

All you do is post Western propaganda and should at least be marked as such.

Interesting at which kind of posts you find the need to comment on.

Stop making stuff up, it’s time to bring the receipts. Where exactly does “Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place”?

Eco treated Stalinism as a seperate, parallel example of totalitarianism, explicitedly not labeling it fascist.

You gotta leave your confused reactionary, red fascism narrative and anti-communism stance behind, if you actually want to understand the world. Maybe start by not being so dishonest.

Some passages from Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism:

If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.

It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.

Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements. This is not because fascism contained in itself, so to speak in their quintessential state, all the elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.

Arbeitslosigkeit · Negativ-Rekord bei Job-Suchenden | Kontrovers | BR24

Viele Betriebe stellen gar nicht ein oder nur sehr zögerlich und die einzigen, die noch einstellen, sind die Rüstungsbetriebe. (4:20)

“Many companies aren’t hiring at all or only very hesitantly, and the only ones still hiring are arms/defense companies.”

I would have been more impressed, if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead personal attacks.

Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.

Oh, the historical fascisms such as under Stalin and Pol Pot, right.

it’s in principle undetermined in ideology

Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.

But the only principles really important for any kind of fascism are violence, anti-rationalism and amorphous ideology.

You’re making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?

Please stop using the internet.