Considering every socialist state invested heavily in education once they came to power, no, I would not say she “nailed it.”
Considering every socialist state invested heavily in education once they came to power, no, I would not say she “nailed it.”
If you get a DUI and the state orders you to take an alcohol class, is that re-education meant to eradicate your culture?
If you do a bunch of petty thefts and the state orders you to participate in a re-entry plan that includes job training, is that re-education meant to eradicate your culture?
the US does not incarerate them just for being black
Historically, this is completely untrue. The post-Reconstruction U.S. famously had all sorts of laws designed to lock up black people for being black, as well as officially tolerated (with public officials often taking part) terror killings of black people just for being black. Even after Jim Crow, the War on Drugs was was explicitly designed to disproportionately lock up black people:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Even if you argue that today this intent has been largely wrung out of the system (which is not a given, and does not address the remaining disproportionate effects of the War on Drugs), there’s still the question of when exactly the U.S. stopped doing what you’re calling genocide and started doing non-genocidal mass incarceration.
That’s what Democrats have been telling me for the past 13 months
I just don’t believe the vast majority of “lesser evil” Democrats because I saw them turn around and enthusiastically cheer on Harris, and then act like someone shot their dog when she lost. If you’re reluctantly supporting 99% Hitler over 100% Hitler, you don’t go to 99% Hitler rallies and you don’t care when he loses.
The UN doesn’t claim China is committing genocide, even in a report that in no way paints China in a good light. The delegation from 14 Muslim-majority countries that visited Xinjiang didn’t think there was a genocide, either.
The only countries claiming there’s a genocide, and that they’re so concerned about the treatment of Muslims in China, are the ones who spent the last 20 years slaughtering millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. has spy satellites that can read a license plate. China could have total control over every camera in their country (lmao) and they wouldn’t be able to hide a genocide.
There’s also a point here in how if you have to kill a bunch of people to fight a movement, and still lose, that means you’re fighting a genuinely popular movement. But if it takes orders of magnitude less violence to fight a movement, and the movement fails, how popular was it to begin with?
If the evidence shows few people support the government, you believe it; if the evidence shows many people support the government, that itself is evidence of government threatening its people. This is an unfalsifiable position; you’ve just decided you don’t like the government no matter what the evidence says.
The 90% figure is also from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Do you think they had the wool pulled over their eyes?
Funny, I was just telling @Cowbee about how the tankies I see on here are insufferable & impossible to converse with.
You don’t see how writing shit like this is insufferable and impossible to converse with?
If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I’m a donkey with a laser dick :P But I’m more anarchistically inclined
Chinese state propaganda
Pretty easy to see your views on China, which sound an awful lot like the State Department’s. If I’m reading too much into what you’re saying, tell us what you really think about the PRC.
It means “anyone who does not immediately believe the most lurid rumors about the Bad Countries”
Comparing different countries’ actions in similar circumstances is the very foundation of international law. “The international community didn’t consider this similar incident a breach of international law, so it shouldn’t consider my much smaller version of the same thing a breach” isn’t whataboutism, it’s an argument advanced in and accepted by the ICJ all the time.
These types of comparisons usually aren’t even used to excuse anything, either (and they aren’t used that way here). The point of the comparison is to ask “do you have a principled opposition to this act that you would apply universally?”
I have a hard time imagining anyone who would stop listening at “communist” but not “tankie”
If you report it to HR and nothing is done then you can sue the company for a hostile work environment.
Good luck
Filing a lawsuit over a sandwich (or threatening someone, as OP mentions) is a comical overreaction anyway. There are a dozen simpler ways to solve the problem.
Project 2025 is scary, but it’s also stuff Republicans have been trying to do since the 80s (as you point out). If Bush and Cheney couldnt do [insert horrible policy here] when they had power, if Trump couldn’t do it the first time around, how are they going to do it now?
This shit isn’t actually popular, a bunch of the money behind the GOP either doesn’t want it or doesn’t care (see the effect mass deportations would have on major companies’ workforces), and we have even less competent people in the federal government than in the first Trump admin, which itself had even less competent people than Bush.
The Democratic Party doesn’t believe this stuff, either (or they just don’t care) – otherwise they’d be bending over backwards between now and January to try and sabotage it. If they cared about mass deportations, Biden could issue pardons for immigration-related offenses. Congress could grant citizenship to large swaths of the immigrants population. But they’re instead busy ensuring the smooth transition of power to people they spent the last decade calling fascists.
It’s not even an AI thing; look at how widespread domestic surveillance was back in the 60s. In the years since it’s only gotten easier to record messages and calls, match those records back to addresses or GPS-given locations, catch people on video, etc.
It’s both overused in the way you describe and yet obscure enough that only terminally-online political people have even heard of it.
“Ignore the problem, hope you get rich enough to keep ignoring the symptoms”
I got bad news for you about every government ever. Are you sitting down?