One large Howitzer shell would at least disable it.
Do not fall for the Fourth Reich Wunderwaffe lies. Their military doctrine only works with complete air superiority, mostly killing civilians, small groups of “the enemy” (people defending their country), and destroying infrastructure.
This article aside, Germany arrested, beat, and prosecuted people for protesting Israel committing genocide in Palestine and promoting freedom and sovereignty for Palestinians, including the common slogans for freedom and sovereignty. It similarly bans left parties, justified by making a false moral equivalence between their genocidal Nazi past (members of whom were then wrapped into West Germany’s government) and the communists who defeated them.
Germany does not believe in freedom of speech nor are its restrictions morally or socially valid. It serves capital and will use every lie and trick and violence necessary to make this legal and publicly acceptable. They’re currently in the process of making VW work with Israel to produce weapons during overt genocide. No real state restrictions there, eh? But they will surely continue going after the protesters.
lol why are you so afraid to just address what I said. Next pointless ramble and I’m out bud
The topic being what Dengism is and why those you label with it might reject your use of the label. I explained this in the previous comment, you can choose whether to engage with it or not but I don’t feel any urge to immediately respond to your various diversions.
I’ll be happy to discuss that after the topic at hand, though it seems you’re trying to avoid it.
It’s an insult to the Filipino Maoists to compare them to the ACP.
ACP are rejected by all communists. They are Strasseritr, reactionary, and a formation deviating even from the revisionist CPUSA. They’re basically right wing grifters and Lemmy liberals are falling for the grift, lacking political education and media literacy.
A communist organizes to overthrow the bourgeois state and class and establish a new order in its place. Historically the term has referred to revolutionary socialists, particularly Marxist-Leninists, who have by far had the most success in revolution. The aftermath of revolution has never practically been immediate transformation, but to enact major changes unacceptable in reformist contexts and defend the revolution and its process.
There are no “tenets” of communism outside this context. Maybe you’re referring to Marx’s conception of communism as a classless, stateless society? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need? This was always in the context of a historical process wherein there was first a dictatorship of the proletariat and the development of productive forces to even make communism possible. It is a prediction of what people will do when the bourgeois are no more, when they can demand more from life, over a long-running process.
By use, a tankie is anyone vaguely on the left that doesn’t fall for every US state department criticism of other countries.
Historically it was a left com / Trotskyist dismissive term referring to communists that justified the intervention in Hungary, with tanks, in 1956. But liberals don’t understand history or politics, nor are curious about them, and the only real content is to imply that the target is bad and not to be believed.
The “Darwinist” example is a good one because that’s generally not the term used in biology for what Young Earth Creationists think they’re doing by using the term dismissively. Evolutionary theory is much richer than Darwinism alone and within it there are disagreements among people, some calling certain views “Darwinist” in a way that is critical, seeing adaptation everywhere in evolutionary history even when it’s unjustified. Creationists just use it as a way to act like it’s a religious dogma, a camp, and therefore on equal footing with Young Earth Creationism rhetorically, and below it to their audience (who believe in creationism already). They typically don’t even know what the term means and can’t discuss the topics involved.
Pretty similar to this thread where terms are thrown around as insults, no understanding is evident, and simply inventing associations and alleged dogmas gets a free pass from those who have never investigated the topics whatsoever.
But “Dengism” isn’t even a thing among the left, there’s very little to it, it’s just reforms in the 80s and people argue over whether they were good or bad and how much. There are no socialist parties that organize themselves around “Dengism”, that’s like having an entire party centered on No Child Left Behind or something. Oh you’re a CLBer!?
Because Dengism isn’t anything other than a dismissive left com term for anyone on the left that doesn’t wholeheartedly dismiss the reforms under Deng.
Liberals have no idea what any of these words mean they just get the “and they’re bad” vibe from context. Like children playing with toys.
Name a “tankie” you’ve interacted with that supports ACP.
It trivializes genocide to compare actual genocide to war or really just other things that are far less.
This is not a difficult concept.
You won’t be able to find a single ACP supporter here. Go read more.
This article was designed specifically to show how gullible Lemmy libs are lmao. Imagine thinking the ACP is even on the left.
It’s not a whataboutism to ask you to acknowledge the principals behind how GHG targets are set via an example when you’re using a simplistic bar to attack another one.
Guess your answer is no, you aren’t going to engage in good faith. Bye.
First off, I’m not talking about India. I’m not a fan of their emissions either, but this discussion is about China.
So you simply can’t engage with this discussion in good faith and are throwing up arbitrary roadblocks so you don’t have to think about things like why climate targets differ relative to development and historical emissions.
I refuse your excuses. India is relevant. Either engage in good faith or I will ignore you.
You would probably appreciate developing direct personal connections. Could be irl or on the internet, just not super anonymous text based stuff like Lemmy.
Humans are a product of their circumstances, they can change over time, there is diversity within a community. Overly broad brushing can lead to a despair like you’re describing and it’s good to remember it’s not accurate. At the same time it is good to be aware of tendencies and patterns because the risks you mention are real in various pockets and subsets of society. The best protection against them is relationships with everyone else, and particularly those who are opposed to and organize against, for example, fascists.
Posting something on a private platform is actually not public. It is the private property of the platform owner and they can make it public or private any time they want or find ways to commodity it in their terms of service when you sign up.
I say this to back up what you say about the myth of the digital commons. Most online networks are not a commons at all, they are the exact opposite, they are an enclosure to extract profit from what would otherwise be a commons, usually built by finance capital to have appealing features at first, generated at a loss, and then once profit needs to be taken the alleged “commons” is increasingly closed and monetized. Journalista don’t really understand this, sure, but neither do most people. They expect, correctly, that social interactions should be analogous to chatting with someone on the street or at a public square, and social networks try to give that illusion.
Regarding individual choice, well a person is surrounded by the exact opposite of what we are saying and all their friends are on their addiction habit social networks so what would you expect them to do. These things don’t just happen on their own, people must work to organize and educate on the way capitalism turns their social lives into profit.