Ah ha ha ha ha ha. USA tried. It failed so hilariously bad that they’re now actively protesting against new rail. There’s this crazy thing, rail needs to be near places people actually want to go. But those places have NIMBY voters, so populated areas won’t get rail. Instead they go to empty parking garages near malls. And then shocker, no one rides. It’s so bad in Denver that they’re using them as a case study to prevent expansion in Utah.
Lol, yes yes it’s always so peaceful when you prepare weapons and arms. Molotovs as simple as they are are still something you have to prep. If you’re prepping bombs, you’re not going there peacefully. You are the one promoting school children deaths by telling them to attack people with weapons.
Always so peaceful preparing molotov cocktails and throwing rocks at soldier’s heads.
It was terribly one-sided. Some bold spirits threw stones. Others had bottles full of petrol– Molotov cocktails–prepared. But the soldiers reacted quickly. They chased after anyone young, beat them with their rifle butts and kicked them with their heavy armed boots.
No, again you’ve shown their constant and repeating violent protests were not successful. Instead they had to have a peaceful one for change. As long as people like you don’t understand that. There will be bodies that keep piling up. Unless you can explain why “democracies” also have violent protests that end with bodies in bags. The violence is pointless, and people like you perpetuate it.
The Koreans were not slaughtered in 1987 and they transitioned peacefully. You don’t know what you are talking about you violent war monger.
And those protests were like the American protests didn’t get anything done. It wasn’t until 7 years later when they simply asked nicely. If anything, you’re proving violence doesn’t work and the best option is to literally simply ask nicely.
Thus, my point about the violent protest being unrelated. It did NOT cause the regime change. I’m not talking about what it’s about, I’m talking about what actually switches the government.
I never said nations don’t have problem. My list of violent massacres in USA proves that. I’m saying violent protests does not lead to regime change as often as a peaceful transition. Your Korean argument proves that as the violent protest did nothing, vs the peaceful one.
*Edit: To be clear, if we study history we find peaceful regime change far more likely than violent ones. BUT people like YOU keep creating violent situations that do not help the situation. If people like YOU stop being violent, maybe we could work towards actually beneficial transitions.
Nice try but you don’t get to argue that a protest over 7 years ago and is unrelated caused the peaceful transfer.
I mean you might as well argue that the blood of Americans were spilled for their freedoms in BLM, Kansas State Massacre, the Chicago fire. Oh wait, those protests massacres happened AFTER USA was a democracy. It’s almost like they’re not related to being a democracy or not and the June protests weren’t part of that massacre because it’s a 7 YEAR gap.
When you don’t know any history perhaps you should read first then comment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Democratic_Struggle
As I said, S.Korea is just one example where peaceful protests brought democracy.
So I don’t know how the Russian/Ukrainian war is going to go. I mean Trump is such a wild card it’s hard to say. But I want to point out that your comment:
that tyranny doesn’t go away by asking nicely. Never has, never will.
Is very wrong. The weirdest thing is you state if you’re paying attention. Well, if you’re paying any attention what so ever, you’ll see that tyranny regularly gets displaced by asking nicely. In fact, in recent history we have South Korea with a peaceful democratic transfer, Taiwan which also had a peaceful democratic transfer, Singapore and many others. And that’s just recent history. Let alone all the Kingdoms that were displaced by democracy in history such as the UK. Heck, the UK still has a monarch and yet run in a democracy because of how peaceful the transfer was. Thailand as well. I could go on, but I think you get the point. In fact one of the MOST COMMON ways to go from Monarchy/Dictatorship to democracy is a peaceful transfer. Obviously that doesn’t always happen, but it’s quite common to simply ask nicely.
*Edit: Actually Ukraine ITSELF was a peaceful transfer from tyranny to democracy. That’s the REASON Putin is angry and jealous of them. I mean you don’t even have to look outside of the combatants to see a peaceful transfer. Which is gone now, but that doesn’t take away that it happened.
Sadly we know this is not true. Just ask the Palestinians and Russians. Regardless of our opinions, those weapons they sent aren’t moldy and absolutely do work.
This is absolute proof that the US knows China won’t invade. If the US thought there was even a slight chance that the invasion would happen, they would have not sent garbage. Especially since they keep calling Taiwan the unsinkable carrier and how important Taiwan is to protect the first island chain. So the only 2 possibilities are that:
It’s not actually important to the first island chain (which we know it is, that’s why China even cares about it at all).
US has no concern what so ever of China invading.
So now we know it’s absolutely the US trying to start a conflict with China to invade Taiwan. They want this kind of news to leak out so China would be emboldened to attack.
*Edit: And if anyone says it’s about semiconductors, you don’t understand how semiconductor manufacturing works. Any violent conflict would pretty much result in a total destruction of the semiconductor factory.
If that happens good? Why do we think having countries and borders that creates strife a good thing? If we eliminate all borders and are just humanity I see that as an absolute win.
I’m curious. When you read articles about how great the economy in the US is and it’s just the voters that don’t understand, do you agree? Do you believe the US government no matter how badly they do? If you don’t believe the US government on this, why do you believe what their propaganda says about their enemies?
It’s because they were never that effective before. But with the advent of drones, they have suddenly become a wildly important protection. This is cause the drones can get stuck in those slat gaps. No other weapon before had this kind of weakness. They were all basically just ballistics before drones.
Uh yea, it’s very much the swatstika is my heritage. And it really shows how your just dismissing cultures you don’t like.
We both agree Nazi swastikas should be banned, your just trying to argue that it wasn’t cultural when it absolutely is. Just as it’s literally part of Chinese and Indian culture. But suddenly when it’s applied to a group you don’t like you just dismiss it? That’s hilariously ignorant.
Also, what’s happening in China has nothing to do with Uigurs. Famously they did it to Hans Chinese first, which lead famously to Tiananmen. Then they did it to the Tibetans, and we made movies like 9 years in Tibet. Now they’re just expanding it. There is no cultural target, it’s just whatever group is next.
Edit. BTW that’s why it was called the cultural revolution, they were trying to wipe out Hans Chinese culture.
I mean if that’s your definition, then China is not doing cultural genocide. They aren’t separating children from parents and re-educating the children to assimilate. They’re taking the parents, re-educating them and telling them to tell their children to be like them moving forward. That’s what the whole sleeping in the beds thing is about. They’re going family to family to make sure they don’t break up families and make the whole family accept a new way of living.
Also, the destruction of racism was targeting white people. Heck that’s what they’re complaining about. They even had traditions and parties based on racism, least we forget who the KKK is So unless black people were also the target of anti-racism, then it was very much just the white people. Also, it was very much a movement from the government. It’s why it lead to a civil war where the south said they could not abide by the northern government.
*Edit: In fact there’s video after video of families in XInjiang asking the people who fled to come home. NOW, that said, it’s entirely possible and likely they were forced to do this. But what I’m pointing out is, they’re absolutely making sure that the families stay together and change as a unit, not forcing separation like what Canada did.
Except by your own argument it really is. The UK has blocked many sites for many reasons. However, none of those reasons are for crowd control. Your example is ironically proof of the statement. This is the first time a western nation has banned media for the explicit purpose of quelling a protest and suppressing speech. Your example is a government banning a site not to quell a protest or to suppress speech, but instead because of a governmental disagreement between two nations. Now which one you think is valid for suppressing speech is a totally different question, only that they are two separate and completely different reasons.
Unfortunately I can’t find articles talking about bed sharing without it being from western media. It’s obviously not something that’s news worthy to begin with. I only know this because of my friends from the Xinjiang region.
The problem with the concept of cultural genocide is that there’s a culture to genocide. Culture is defined by the situations and effects of the moment. Culture changes, ebbs and flows. The Menorah is as much a part of Jewish culture as the Torah. But the Menorah was created out of what we today would call cultural genocide. You can’t genocide culture that idea is ridiculous, instead the culture will adapt and change with whatever is happening at the moment.
The question then isn’t is there cultural genocide, but what if anything we should protect in a culture. USA used to have a culture of racism, we obviously went out of our way to “culturally genocide” that. Should we have not done that? Should the fact that it was part of our culture mean we should protect oppressing black people? In reality, by our own definitions, some cultures do need to be genocided.
Well a problem with your argument is that assimilation is not only not unethical, but absolutely necessary for a functioning society. Imagine if you will for a second if our culture accepted racism and bigotry. It would be necessary to force assimilation on people to stop racism and bigotry. Oh wait, that’s happening right now. We’re literally forcing a culture of acceptance on a culture of racism and bigotry. Is that unethical? Should we stop? Perhaps we should have colored drinking fountains.
The problem you’re having with China is:
The government is the one that’s doing it, instead of naturally letting companies like Disney shove it down people’s throats.
The assimilation is over reaching.
The biggest problem is #2. We don’t know what the fuck that means. Should I be allowed to say the N word if there’s no other racism or bigotry? If there’s no racism and bigotry, is the N word even racist? Yet we enforce word usage today, just words that only have meaning because we give them meaning. yet it’s quite over reaching to censor words no? Where’s the line drawn?
I mean joking aside, that’s what this means yes. It’s a common negotiation tactic. It’s like the businessman who comes into a meeting saying he’s never had to sell so the price is going to be very high.
But yes, this also matches up with the joke that whatever Russia says, believe the opposite. Except in this particular case it’s literally part of the art of negotiations. Not the Trump book.