No doubt it's a backslide, but it's still a revolution where the entire country stood up and said "fuck this, let's change things" and no one got hurt. It's possible if people want to change the system.

The goal of the link was to show the possibility of change without violence. It's absolutely possible. For now, skip past the details of what flag fell and what rose up - Capitalism can be stopped when people see another way and are tired of what they are going through. Right now they only see details of history and miss the potential for what happened and how it started.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Anyway, what are we going to do, shoot capitalism?

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I dont think that's an accurate portrayal of history, also this just proves that communist states can peacefully transition not capitalist ones if we take what you said as given

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

please explain why you banned me from world news. i broke no rules whatsoever.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You can look at the modlog at the bottom of the web page

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I see it, I'm asking you to explain specifically which rules I broke because your modulo comments do not cite any rules.

"Wars/personal violence equivocation"

lol. firstly, you don't know what "equivocation" means. I guess you mean equivalence? Secondly, it's called an analogy used for the purpose of discussion.

And since when is advocating for self-defense "pro war"? By your logic anything other than absolute pacifism is "pro war". Is there no scenario in your mind where the use of force may be necessary? That was the entire point of the conversation I was having which you unilitarerally decided to nuke, and which broke absolutely no community or Lemmy rules whatsoever.

Go ahead and disagree with me in the comments if you like, but removing them and banning me is a ridiculous overuse of mod powers. you are just censoring comments you disagree with.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Secondly, it’s called an analogy used for the purpose of discussion.

It is an inaccurate analogy that serves to justify war.

And since when is advocating for self-defense “pro war”?

It isn't self defense when you've been bombarding civilians and using nazi paramilitaries in the oblasts the Russians want to occupy for years before the war started.

And since when is advocating for self-defense “pro war”? By your logic anything other than absolute pacifism is “pro war”. Is there no scenario in your mind where the use of force may be necessary?

Well, let me say it like this. You're argument is based on the ideal of self defense, and not the actual historical conditions or the outcomes of that war continuing to be prosecuted. What good is an ideal to a dead conscript or civilian? If you want to go around justifying war use less obviously disingenuous rhetoric.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

wow it's almost like you can respond with words instead of abusing your mod powers. why didn't you try that in the first place? Oh, I guess because you aren't a mod here you couldn't just ban me, huh?