ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝

Settler colonialism is not about race, it’s about the goal of eliminating one society by forcibly establishing another and pushing the original one out. What you are talking about is called ethnic cleansing. Settler colonialism attacks the idea of Palestine and Ukraine, ethnic cleansing is killing people systematically because they are Palestinian or Ukrainian.

Israel does their settlement one way, because they are racially and religiously motivated, Russians do their settlement another way because they are imperialistically and national chauvinistically motivated.

Yes, they are not exactly alike, but the actions and end goals don’t differ as much as the motivations.

Are they segregating the population or practicing apartheid based on ethnicity?

As an example, they are declaring the homes of war refugees abandoned, and are giving it to Russians, specifically excluding Ukrainians.

That they are not merely trying to make Ukraine Russian-aligned.

They are trying to move 5 million Russians into Ukrainian territory, and have confiscated tens of thousands of homes after making their owners war refugees and are giving them to Russians.

They have kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, and they are not just educating them to be Ukrainians accepting Russian rule, but they want to completely Russify them as a further attempt of erasing the Ukrainian nation.

Yes. And so is Russia.

Israel wants it so that there are no more people who call themselves Palestinians in Gaza. Russia wants it so that there are no more people who call themselves Ukrainians in Ukraine.

Except Russia also did and is doing settler colonialism, inasmuch they have been moving Ukrainians out and Russians into Ukraine for the past century at least, as they did with other Soviet republics, as they are doing to neighbouring states, with the aim of eroding their national identity.

Just like they are doing now. The only marginal difference is that there are not enough Ukrainians to alter electoral balances, and Russia would be able to dissolve the population of Ukraine via forced relocations instead of just killing them all. Both are genocide by the way.

They are attempting to do the same thing, to erase the national identity of the people living there and conquer the place.

Even the settlement thing matches, the Soviets used to move Russians into all the republics to erase national boundaries and make them all uniformly Russian.

I wonder if the author is alright

I’d say it’s more of a fact that there is no single axis political spectrum, and communists are not “further to the left” from democratic socialists, but just more towards authoritarianism.

This.

Hungary has this thing where the agitprop always gets some footage taken before the protest starts so the crowd looks smaller as it’s only the early people there from police drones.

You can’t fly your own drone to counter the narrative.

Iran already tried to kill Trump before the election

about laws in general

Terms of Service aren’t laws. Breaking them is not illegal. It’s like using the waterslide while sitting and not lying on your back. In fact, it’s explicitly legal to use an adblocker and control what happens on your device in both the EU and the US. There are ongoing debates whether the surveillance required for blocking adblockers is legal in the EU.

Google does break laws all the time by the way, and is holding a monopoly. If people had to pay for Youtube, alternatives would spring up overnight, but since you can still watch Youtube free, they can’t.

Also, I’d be the happiest person if Google finally figured out how to block people with adblockers completely, so that the majority of people would wean themselves off of one of the world’s biggest disinfo peddlers.

Tencent would never allow it.

The US has a sale-or-ban order in force right now, it is not up to Tencent, but the Taco King right now.

Besides it’s software, that has no subsidiaries.

You must mean assets. I’m talking about the legal entity, that’s what subsidiary means, a local US sub-company owned by the Chinese parent company. US Tiktok operations are owned by the local US subsidiary Tiktok Inc, incorporated in California, owned by Bytedance. That ownership relation is entirely regulated by US law.

In this case there is nothing to steal.

$10 billion in US revenue, the market share and the cultural, societal and political impact of the platform is there for the taking.

You can do so to the local subsidiary

Tiktok?

Oh they’ll force you to use it. It will be shoved into every service you use, also ones you need to use. You will not be able to do your work, access government services, or live your life without going through them.

Late stage capitalism has killed the free market a while ago.

Honest question, what is the ableist slur being discussed?

IDK they were a bit upset last time when I brought my emotional support RPG-7 to the Vatican

no state should have the power to execute people

I would present a counterargument to that, as all states in the world ultimately have this power, only the circumstances differ. I mean, grab a gun and try to shoot at armed police anywhere in the world. You will be killed, and nobody can sue the state or the police who shot you for unjustly executing you. Killing you is always fair to protect other people from being killed.

From there, we are arguing whether states should be able to kill in cold blood, which is a different conversation, and my opinion is that we should keep making penalties for “financial crimes”, which usually kill more people than any mass shooter or serial killer could, harsher and harsher until there is a clearly visible deterrent effect.

The case of the lady in Vietnam is not even a direct “cold blood” case by the way, as the state agreed to spare her if she puts at least most of the money back, which means that lives lost because of the absence of that money might be spared. In my view, this is analogous to shooting at an active shooter, and an okay thing to do. Lives are being saved by doing this.

That is a very good argument, however these financial crimes are on the one hand much more trackable than direct violent crime and can affect more people.

My opinion is that we shouldn’t execute serial killers who kill dozens of people, because usually it’s hard to prove beyond doubt to the point such an irrevocable act can be taken and the process takes very long and is very expensive and is not that useful as a deterrent since these people are usually mentally ill in the first place.

But with the Boeing CEO whose actions caused several plane crashes, it’s pretty easy to prove since instructions had to come from somewhere and the buck stops at the top, it has deterrent value, just look at UnitedHealth, and the crime is much more severe than that of a serial killer, as most serial killers don’t kill multiple hundreds of people.