- •
- 2Y
- •
- •
- 2Y
- •
- •
- 3Y
- •
- •
- 3Y
- •
Crosslinking my post here: https://lemmy.ml/post/240595/comment/166490
The title is very misleading. Fuck Erdoğan, but this it’s not trying to take over Iraq. They’re killing Kurdish separatists with Iraq’s permission (which is also bad).
- •
- 3Y
- •
I wouldn’t be confident assuming “it’s just retribution”, it’s tactically useful. More detail in https://lemmy.ml/post/239272/comment/165414
Nation states and criminal organizations have considered universities a valuable target for a long time now. Easier than financial institutions and military targets, campus-wide networks, sensitive data on thousands and thousands of students, often lots of powerful hardware and even research equipment to botnet or abuse for processing/mining coing. Lots of value in owning them.
Alternatively, reclaiming ‘female dog’ would work too
I have a feeling many younger feminists have done that intentionally, treating the word as a badge of honor for their vocalness in protesting. For the past 26 years, Portland, Oregon had a feminist zine with that exact title.
To provide some responses to your extra questions:
I don’t think “female” is offensive.
The frustrating thing about offense is it often relies on people having a different perspective, which sometimes is obvious (especially with terms clearly used as insults) but sometimes is more subtle. I feel that it helps to seek out a properly-explained reason someone is offended, to understand the context rather than just the text.
LGBTQ+ politics is confusing …
It’s not even that (those letters stand for things and ‘female’ isn’t one). It’s not even feminism either, I’ve seen “femcel” misandrist groups using ‘male’ the same way to alienate and objectify. Some other people have already explained, it’s a technical biological/medical term that is legitimate, but some people (especially those who don’t like women) use it in a context that is dehumanizing and objectifying, by not using adjectives or nouns more casual and specific to people. Context is the big thing with offense and something I think needs to be emphasized.
I understand that the nuance, like most social nuance, my seem silly and a big thing to care about; a woman is literally an adult female person and that isn’t in itself an insult, it’s a category. But using technical language in a casual context can be interpreted as treating someone like they’re an object of study rather than a fellow human, same with referring to people as ‘it’ (a few people are fine with that for they purpose of explicitly denouncing the concept of gender, but most people would be offended if you referred to them as ‘it’ instead of (for examples) their name or another gendered pronoun).
I think much of it comes down to how “male/female/intersex” are often used in non-technical language when referring to animals (or flowers or electronic connectors), whereas “boy/girl/kid/man/woman” and others usually refer to humans (although they are regularly used also with pet animals, which people often like to humanize and develop personal bonds). That’s why some people are instinctively offended by male/female in a casual non-technical context, like “I find you males interesting” or “It’s easy to talk to you guys, but females make me nervous”. It’s alienating and sexualizing.
Since capitalism has been the most common economic system since its rise in the 19th century, it’s the majority of the countries that have fallen since then, and a bunch of sovereign states before. It’s a large (and probably contested, based on definitions) list. I am confident, for one example, to list the British Empire in the 1800s onward which embraced free trade, liberalism and a market economy [wikipedia]. It’s not a country, but a capitalist empire and the “first global economic superpower” that shrank from this in 1921 to these current 14 overseas territories. I realize it’s not strictly a country but it demonstrates the point of a big capitalist system falling. If you don’t consider fascism to be capitalist (debatable based on definitions: socialists generally consider them capitalist), then I believe liberal Kingdom of Italy and the Weimar Republic (Germany) before the '20/'30s count too.
A different (IMO better) question is whether capitalism itself was the cause, or how it influenced their downfall. And that’s obviously a complex question. Merely being capitalist/socialist/etc. and falling (even for economic reasons) isn’t a solid reason to abandon those economic theories, especially when these systems were new and being trialed for the first times.
Good critique, I’ll have a read of them. Thanks.
by simply adopting technology invented by those dirty capitalists
Well when 90% of the countries are capitalist, where do you expect most of the world’s inventions to come from? Should they boycott most of the world over some meaningless idealism? That’s like saying “NASA adopted technologies from the Nazis” (Operation Paperclip) as if that’s a meaningful critique.
But it seems concerning that the places that invented those technologies weren’t as effective in using them, shouldn’t they have an advantage?
(I have an Excel inventory of most of the things I own and where they are stored).
I have been personally wondering if this is a good idea/worth it. Since I’m moving to a new place in… ~oh wow it’s about two weeks now~, it will be possible to get this started without excluding anything that’s rarely used.
Any advice, or is it pretty straight-forward?
I think it’s more than just “a […] country”, it was most of Europe as well as the USA!
And it might be a good time to mention things like United States involvement in regime change (Wikpedia). It’s not an isolated issue, it’s a strategy.
Yeah, it’s a terrible thing how marketing techniques have found their way into research, especially when they should be the most motivated to tolerate dryiness.
That post was also downvoted to hell
+12 / -4 isn’t really down, but yes you’re right that the ‘link dump’ is being better received. Point taken, I was a bit quick to bite.
If you actually watched it,
And that’s the problem: I didn’t want to watch it. And I agree with it.
There’s more to rhetoric and convincing people than merely being correct and well-cited. Those are important, and I love those, but understanding your audience is critical if you want them to even begin reading, let alone continue.
I personally believe that a good approach is to post the shorter material that directly answers their written arguments in the body of the post (like the “USSR failed” and “mass murderer” points) and then say the rest, like “to understand the other reasons why people support Marxism, see these:”.
There is absolutely no way to trim down an answer to “why Marxism” into anything resembling bite sized.
The image you posted in https://lemmy.ml/post/218208/comment/150132 gives an excellent counter-argument to this claim.
It doesn’t go into depth, it leaves that for later now that you have their interest. You’ve provided the introduction at the beginning of the book, a quick snippet of the benefits the USSR brought to its people and the impacts of taking it away. They didn’t need to read Capital Vol. 1-3 to understand that 0% unemployment was achieved. And now that they see that, you have their interest, and your links come into play with a more in-depth explanation of why Marxism was responsible for this and able to help achieve it.
Safe from who? ISPs? Copyright trolls? State law enforcement? Different problems may have different solutions.
People are often safe pirating without a VPN either because of ‘safety in numbers’ (essentially just obscurity) or by living in a region that doesn’t care much about it. But as a distributor, I would assume there is a higher risk if you’re distributing something that will make copyright owners seek a take down.
Further, what is the reason you’re open to onion routing and I2P but not VPNs?
I doubt that, it sounds like a violation of safe harbor (similar to ISPs and hosting sites not getting in trouble unless they are made aware and fail to act) which is admittedly a gray area. Got a source?