It’d be fine and understandable if we’re talking to the average person, but to anyone with some political knowledge, who willingly say things like this… it’s less forgivable

Especially when they speak of two or more entities in a conflict, on the same footing… when the power between is asymmetrical

For example: When you say nationalism, do you mean national chauvinism (nationalism at the expense of neighbors; rightist) or national liberation (nationalism to liberate the many, or just an ethnic group; leftst)?

When you say criticism of {insert anti-west, if not socialist nation}'s government is banned in a nation, do you mean constructive criticism or regime change rhetoric?

When you say dictatorship in a world, the dictatorship of fucking what… no man rules alone… is that of the capitalists, the feudal lords, the proletariat? Baby-brained dickhead… you could just think of, idk, some random political movement and that’s it

Like Idk… the Schiller institute ruling Belarus or something… then we can pretend you actually have a clue about the damn country

And lastly, but most recently, ‘both sides badism’

I swear, this is the last resort pipeline libs go to, when even their western allies are reprehensible as fuck…

For example:

When you say both sides have committed atrocities in Israel-Gaza war, with Israel undoubtedly causing disproportionate series of massacres against Gazans, in their war against guerillas.

Yet you can’t apply saying the same courtesy to the Russo-Ukraine War… even though the morality of war between them is more comparable… relatively

Honestly, fuck you…

And don’t get me started about how you can just label your enemies Hamas, and that’s the end of the argument

Also, fuck western-funded NGOs, may NED’s HQ in Washington DC be bombed, Eglin Air Base nuked…

  • lil_tank@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    49·
    15 days ago

    no man rules alone…

    Stalin was the epitome of the autocracy. During the first plenary session of the 13th Central Committee he rushed at the center of the table and grabbed all the power and put it in his pockets. All party members were staring at him like “no Stalin what are you doing!!” but he kept filling his pockets until there was no power left for anybody else. His pockets were so full that he had a hard time walking. Everyone was crying because he had taken all the power and now they couldn’t do anything about it. Still think Stalin is cool?

  • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    36·
    15 days ago

    When you say criticism of {insert anti-west, if not socialist nation}'s government is banned in a nation, do you mean constructive criticism or regime change rhetoric?

    Without fail, every single time I’ve seen a liberal whine about how the authoritarian commies on bear/grad banned them just for making a comment critical of China!, this is what they mean.

  • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    17·
    15 days ago

    It’s what happens when your worldview isn’t grounded in materialism. Everything is reduced to vague concepts and ideas (“authoritarianism,” “nationalism”, “extremism”) that can be judged in a vacuum without any regard for the purpose or situation to which they’re applied.

  • Red_Sunshine_Over_Florida [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    10·
    15 days ago

    I try to to look at constructive criticism to improve the policies of socialist states but, I always draw the line at sanctions and regime change. Maybe the Chinese could further improve their investments in rural healthcare and education, improve access to welfare for rural workers trying to eek it out in the cities, ect. I hope they succeed but, it’s ultimately their business to deal with.

    I know from the example of Russia in the 90s and American policy in the Middle East that regime change will bring untold suffering to the people in those countries and only build future consensus for local reactionary politics. Nor do I want any more instability visited on the world at such a critical juncture in human history, where international cooperation is needed the most to mitigate the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change. All these issues must be resolved by peaceful diplomatic means in a global forum of peer nations.