Same. Posted fairly blissfully ignorant for a couple months, until I shared my experiences teaching Taiwanese and Chinese university exchange students in the same room. Obviously, I got banned.

That’s about the point I became aware I was hanging out in a nazi bar just because the atmosphere was nice and the beers were cheap.

My man, I can’t grow up on Kevin Smith films and miss the opportunity to sit between him and Jason Mewes. Are we kidding?

It sounds to me more that they think antisemitism is morally correct based on their aforementioned conspiracies.

Because apparently blaming the people committing the crimes isn’t enough. You need to perpetuate hate against an entire ethnic/religious group, otherwise your opinion is invalid as “Liberal tears.”

Anyone who looks at everything that is listed in the Epstein files and concludes, “this is why Judaism is bad,” needs to pull their head out of their racist ass.

The documentation on how China “solved” homelessness exists, mostly thanks to previous citizens that left.

Unfortunately, reliable modern information is scarce, because that’s what you get with an authoritarian regime obsessed with information control and social engineering.

The same can be said of America’s culturally in groups.

Unfortunately, thanks to authoritarian control of the media, it’s hard to tell exactly how many labour camps filled with “totally not homeless” people are propping up China’s economy.

It’s a little sad when our collective culture has convinced us that any woman being unapologetically horny online must be a bot.

I’ve definitely seen humans “behave like this.” Spend 15 seconds on any short-form social media, and it’s thirst post after thirst trap post, ad infinitum. We have had posters here in Lemmy that pretty perpetually post boomer-humor style content that aimlessly sexualizes women. But a woman goes “fuck it, I want to do that,” and it must be a bot, because that’s the culture we’ve built.

Women aren’t really different from men. Men act up being horny all the time. Women are like that too; we just look down on them when they do. It’s about time we stop claiming to be beyond petty sexism while continuing to seperate the genders so unabashedly.

They really need to stop devaluing the meaning of the word “racism.”

Equating the life of individual privilege that the leader of an autocratic nation lives with an oppressed minority is despicable. Even from the (completely dishonest) position that leaders like Kim Jong Un are actively making their countries better, there’s no perspective that allows one to depict someone in such a position of power as suffering akin to the murdered and marginalized communities that genuine victims of racism have to suffer through.

We hate Kim Jong Un because he’s a fascist, narcissistic piece of shit, warping the narrative in his own country to justify living a life of luxury while his people suffer. Race has nothing to do with it.

people just as left-wing as they are

People so “left” they wrap right back around to merit-based authoritarianism.

Well, he did leave you another option.

Imagine spending your time being intentionally obtuse about the colloquial understanding of “America” and then calling other people “lame ass trolls.” C’mon man. Be better.

Okay, can I just derail this slightly to have a genuine conversation about what “racism” is here, for a second?

Racism is by and large when prejudice has become widespread enough that it disadvantages a group. Academically, when people research racism, they’re not worried about individual prejudices, they’re worried about collective prejudices that create additional challenges in people reaching prosperity. This is where admittedly misguided statements like “you can’t be racist against white people” come from, as you may dislike white people all you’d like, but globally and within any country in the Western sphere, they’re the ones in power.

So, that in mind, what are people trying to argue when they call it “racist” to associate Xi with Winnie the Pooh? There’s the obvious intended issue in that Pooh is yellow, and throughout history racist epithets around the colour yellow have been used to describe Chinese people. And absolutely, in those cases where they were a minority, ie a Chinese immigrant coming to North America, such language is unapologetically racist. They’re a disadvantaged “out” group, and this language is used to further other them and create a negative public perception. It’s not hard to see how that’s racist.

But we’re not talking about Chinese people as minorities in other countries. In fact, we’re not talking about Chinese people at all. We’re talking very specifically about the president-for-life of one of the most powerful nations in the world. Nothing anyone we’re speaking to can say or do anything to disadvantage him. Even if you want to argue that a given person dislikes him due to racial prejudice and nothing more (which is absolutely a shitty thing to do) there’s nothing “racist” about that prejudice, persay.

Now, I’m not so delusional as to think that the academic understanding of racism and the colloquial concept of racism are one in the same. Obviously, drawing a divide between academic racism and racial prejudices is splitting hairs outside of, well, academic study. But my concern becomes this: aren’t we diminishing the problems with genuine racism when we engage with asinine ideas like “portraying Xi as Winnie the Pooh is racist”? Large scale systematic oppression is a real widespread issue that has disadvantaged, and in some cases all but erased, many cultures all over the world. Native populations of Canada and the US, African populations abused by the colonial powers, the Ugyhurs in concentration camps in China… Those are good examples of racism. People who engage with language and attitudes that continues to perpetuate those crimes are racist.

To this day, the economic power and social mobility of these social groups are severely disadvantaged from a history of racism, and we’re going to conflate that with pictures of Winnie the Pooh because it offends one of the most powerful people in the world? I don’t buy it. This whole take is purely brain dead tankie bullshit from people who are attempting to construct a moral highground. If they were genuinely concerned with the problem of racism, it is not the hill they’d die on, and they’d at least recognize the difference in harm. But they don’t, because it’s not an honest argument to begin with; it’s just more tankie propaganda.

And a quick shout out to anyone who stuck with me long enough to read this. It’s been jostling around in my brain for a while, and I’m glad to try to finally put the scattered thoughts into words.

Okay, but, even ruled an accident, why is this guy not up for manslaughter charges? Do I grossly misunderstand what manslaughter is?

This is definitely some smoking gun tier bullshit, but even given every benefit of the doubt in the world, the negligence has to be criminal.

I’ve been rewatching Bojack Horseman, and there’s an episode where Diane convinces the state to pass common-sense gun legislation by making it “in” for women to carry guns. The eventually leads to the line, “I can’t believe this country hates women more than it loves guns,” to which the character with her replies, “really?”

I think that moment is, unfortunately, rather poignant.

While I appreciate the personal anecdote, what was the cost paid by your insurer? Being covered by private insurance is great for you, but what happens to the people without the means?

The subtext of your post is an insinuation that it isn’t as bad as others make it out to be, but it sounds like it wasn’t bad for you because you have good private insurance, and the means to obtain and manage that insurance. Not everyone is in that situation, and those who don’t have access to good private insurance, or simply make a mistake in managing their insurance, shouldn’t be forced to pay absurd fees out of debt/pocket.

This is the most deranged thread I’ve ever chosen to scroll through on here.

You can be against two genocides. Being against one genocide doesn’t make you for another. This is not a challenging moral conundrum. Anyone trying to paint this as “you either want to kill all Israeli’s, or you want to kill all of Palestine” needs some kind of social-emotional-moral help and development, at the least.

In other communities, I’d agree. In a community dedicated to exposing their lies? I think I see it as a “give them enough rope to hang themselves” situation.

Though I absolutely take your point.

Canada’s food safety regulations spits all over the American ones. When putting myself through university via the food service industry, I was shocked to learn how many hoops American companies have to jump through to meet our food safety standards.

Honestly, they get downvoted and mocked into oblivion, while simultaneously demonstrating the purpose of this community. Why ban them?