volodya_ilich

joined 3 months ago
[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you read the article, it's talking about a 2-year anniversary of some deliberation made by UN, not about any new evidence of anything. There's a claim of "hundreds of thousands still remain wrongfully imprisoned", but I beg you to find a source for that because the article doesn't provide any... because it's not true. The focus of the article is "there's been no punishment yet on any Chinese officials, and the laws are still in place". No (sourced) metrics of people suffering any abuses, nothing, just a general condemnation without evidence. Did you even read it?

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

The events that led to the conquest of northern Africa by Arabs took place what, 1000+ years ago? You can hardly argue that "Arabs are colonialists" in modern times by judging 1000+ years old historical events, in the same way you probably wouldn't judge modern Greek people as colonialists because they speak an Indo-European language and Indo-European languages are spoken all over the continent of Europe and much beyond.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not "downvoted me", I'm not the original commenter. Saying "you're disagreeing with the OC without bringing any actual arguments" isn't ad-hominem.

Calling someone a fucking stupid kid, is.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Please, evidence from 2022 onwards

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago

I asked for metrics, you're bringing words, do you see the problem?

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

How is "shut your stupid fucking mouth, kid" not a personal attack instead of attacking the substance of my arguments?

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Wikipedia:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ok, give me some metrics that explain why this is the most effective climate legislation please, other than Biden claiming so

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

So no metrics by which things are improving, gotcha.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago (6 children)

There... are no metrics in the link you sent me... There's "plans to reduce emissions by X year", but no mention to progress so far. There's "investment into carbon capture and sequestration" (famously known to not work) but no metric. There's "a pause in the approvals for new natural gas projects" (but the ones approved keep opening up)...

Have you even read what you sent me?

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Fuck you, ACTUAL genocide denier. Palestine will be free from the river to the sea. There's no concern for Uyghurs and no evidence of mistreatment of any sorts since 2021, and I dare you to find anything other than anonymous interviews and other forms of anecdotal evidence.

 

Martin Luther King was a well-known activist for Black peoples' and worker's rights. After many years of fighting racism and oppression from the establishment, he shared insights on some of his findings of the unjust opposition to rightful change, which may surprise a few of us who are still learning about his figure:

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

We've recently seen widespread liberal rejection of grassroots progressive movements such as Black Lives Matter, the protests against western collaborationism in the ongoing genocide in Palestine, and many so-called "progressives" dedicating more time to finding the mistakes committed by non-western regimes than those of their own nations, and calling "Tankies" to those who are a bit further to the left than us. Let us consider if we ourselves are the moderates that Dr. Luther King was talking about, and let's push for the change we actually want rather than bickering about who's "too far to the left"

view more: next ›