I’m glad you apologized for your previous comment and i accept it, thank you.

it takes some industrial grade turbo-shitlib horseshoe theory mental gymnastics to be able to puke up some verbal diarrhea like that.

Kulaks were not a “people,” they were owners of private property, specifically farmland, who had serfs work the land. They lived off of the exploitation of others. They were the feudal rough-equivalent of the petit bourgeois class. So of course they weren’t going to embrace socialism or land collectivization, or having to work a day in their lives.

This is what happens to all of us who’ve lived a lifetime of anti-communist propaganda. Unless you take the time & effort to go back and examine all of that received wisdom, you’ll continue believing that Kulaks were a people genocided by the evil Slavic Bolsheviks. And then we have to—as patiently as we can muster—explain the same basic things to people over and over again.

“If you change the word “Nazis” to “black people” then you see how rascist antifa are!”

• an idiot

Not the same, dude.

Like, nit necessarily good, but not the fucking same.

you’ve got to be on some next level stupidity to believe that.

Minor tidbit, the Zapatistas directly and explicitly reject the label “anarchist,” they see their own movement as organic and self-driven more than anything. Not saying you can’t use them as an example of anarchist-adjacent structures, but they quite clearly dislike the term being applied to themselves.

Fine, nobody here. You can also find plenty of talk conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in the same amount of articles and people online.

Their history speaks for itself.

As does Russian history.

Because of how the UN works, a statement from the UN that something isn’t a genocide isn’t necessarily evidence that it’s not a genocide under the definition the UN gives. Obviously, there’s the massive elephant in the room of not upsetting member states in a way that might make them less likely to engage (especially when they’re as capable of ignoring the UN as China due to their power and having a permanent veto on the Security Council), but there’s also the fact that the UN’s got lots of subcommittees and working groups that regularly put out statements that contradict each other. A few weeks ago, news was going around that the UN had released a report saying there was no evidence of a genocide against Palestinians, and it was true that they had, but it was from a body whose job was to represent Israel, and it contradicted hundreds of other reports saying there was overwhelming evidence of a genocide.

The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights is a pretty big deal, though, so if they say whether or not something’s a genocide, it’s worth paying attention. However, the report you linked doesn’t make a statement one way or the other - in fact it doesn’t contain the word genocide even once. It does list an awful lot of things that the Genocide Convention includes in its definition, though. A report that presents a lot of evidence of genocide but little against, and says crimes against humanity are happening while stopping short of making a definitive claim of genocide isn’t something that says a there’s no genocide. The people who’ve shown you that report and said it says there’s no genocide are misrepresenting it to push an agenda. Several countries recognised a genocide based on the evidence the report gave (although obviously they weren’t all without an agenda of their own).

The tankie talking point is that nothing bad is happening to the Uyghurs, which is blatantly false.

Bad things have absolutely happened to them. They suffered violence from Salafi-Jihad terrorists[1][2] and suffered mass unemployment from the West’s (led by the US, ofc) embargoes on Xinjiang cotton, the region’s main export, which only adds tinder to terrorism potentially re-igniting. Given the last 25 years of the US showing the world that it doesn’t give a rat’s about Muslims, and given that it considers China to be its greatest adversary/enemy, one shouldn’t uncritically accept its professed motive: to protect poor, oppressed Uyghurs.

The ICJ is a court and as such slow. As for statements showing intent, there is a plethora of statements, from comparing Palestinians to biblical “Amalek” (Netanyahu), over saying it is “unfortunate” that the world won’t let Israel just starve all people in Gaza to death (Ben Gvir) to public broadcast employees saying they want to commit another Holocaust in Gaza.

Y’all are having a gun fight? Seems to me you’d have more to worry about than arguing online were that the case. In fact it seems more of an internet squabble than a gun fight, but tbf I’m not in your location, maybe you are posting comments in between mag changes.

Oh yay, the tankie supreme has joined the conversation. To share…a link to a search page? The irony of thinking a Lemmy search page is a useful link, in a comment that criticises Wikipedia.

This “cultural genocide” invention

It was “invented” in the very same book that coined the term genocide. Cultural genocide has been a part of genocide since the very inception of the concept of genocide. I shouldn’t have to explain that multiple things can fit in the same category without being equal. Playing whataboutism games as an excuse to deny ongoing genocides is a supremely bad look.

We’re more than happy (at least those of us on the left) to admit Australia’s “stolen generation” was an act of genocide. I’m not as well-informed about it, but my understanding is that Canada’s “residential school system” has been even more widely recognised as such. The concept of cultural genocide is pretty well established and widely accepted in leftist circles. The only exception to this seems to be tankies trying to deny China’s own examples of it in Tibet and Xinjiang.

Removed by mod

It does dictate what people see first. It’s easy to bury a subject with a few bots.

How can you say they don’t matter when you have a strong position on them and the importance of how they’re implemented?

It’s quite literally a fascists favorite insult, half their deal is railing against “degenerated culture” because kids have iPads instead of 7-6 jobs or reconquering Rome or whatever

A word doesn’t belong to alt-right losers just because it becomes popular on 4chan for a bit.

It came from Nazis, from Hitler and Goebbels. 4chan picked it up because 4chan has a lot of racists & neo-Nazis.

• https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/degenerate-art-1
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_music

“Degenerate” implies there’s a pure blood line and that mixed breeding literally made it degenerate.

What do you think the word means? “Degeneration” is inherently a conservative concept. It means “used to be good but isn’t anymore”

A word doesn’t belong to alt-right losers just because it becomes popular on 4chan for a bit.

Pretty sure 4chan is the capital of alt-right losers.

well even the new definition/common usage includes implications of degeneration, whose meaning we would all know even without learning about Hitler

I’ve used “degenerate” and heard it used many times.

self report

If you’re referring to other people as subhuman people are going to come to conclusions about your worldview.