this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
128 points (74.8% liked)
World News
2316 readers
160 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Holy shit, NATOpedia made an article saying "Hey, there might be actual historical context to this situation and Putin didn't wake up on February 24th and decide to murder a bunch of people because he's a very evil bad bad man and King Zelensky shall slay the dragon and then we all live happily ever after." is actually Russian disinformation? Oh my fucking god. These people are unbearable.
It's so fucking funny. I shared it semi-ironically (the Russian bots are inside your walls) but I also want it to serve as an example of liberal anti-communist biases that permeate Wikifedia and hopefully an exercise for our more liberal acquaintances to practice their critical reading skills.
Hey, that time the Ukrainian state killed people? It wasn't TECHNICALLY an attempted genocide, according to our sixth-time revised definition of the term (rev. 2022). We know they TECHNICALLY outlawed the spoken and written language of a major plurality of their people and TECHNICALLY killed 14,000+ of them, but like, it wasn't a genocide. Russia is doing the genocide. Because Putler is ebil.
It's amazing how thin the veneer of understanding is on empire defenders. They cannot even keep their criticisms of international and national policy differentiated, when it comes to attacking anti-imperialists it's always both. No examination of political economy or national histories, just democratic good guys and auforitarian bad guys.
That's hilarious. What should happen after signing an agreement is that the violence should stop! Gtfo with this things were getting better but we won't provide any evidence to back this claim up bullshit.
Reminds me of how ingrained the presupposed eternal nature of this imperialist hell is into things like statistical analyses of police violence.
For instance, I once had a guy in college (who is now a professional Republican lobbyist) tell me that there was indeed a racial problem behind police violence in the U.S.! The racial disparity between how many white folk and how many black folk were getting killed, he agreed, was appalling. He said, however, that over time that disparity was shrinking, and officer-involved fatalities were reaching "equitable levels between whites and blacks!", so we're actually on the fast track to progress, not regress.
The disparity was shrinking. Not the actual amount of murders.
The wanton and brutal murders committed by police are not the primary issue, they say, the opaquely racial disparity between who is being murdered is.
A game of images. A perfectly logical conclusion to this train of thought is that police should simply murder more white people to prove that racism is over, to make state-sanctioned violence more equitable. Murder, but be inclusive about it!
This is the presentation of the issue by those who acknowledge that there even exists a racial problem. There are plenty who outright deny its existence and still more who celebrate it. Politicians who claim to oppose police violence (especially the phenotypically-motivated kind) will nevertheless be found supporting legislation that further militarizes the police. This is how Amerika does politics... never harm reduction, only harm redistribution - at best.