'Israeli' farmers report widening boycott of exports across Europe, Japan: Reports
'Israeli' farmers and food exporters are reporting a sharp rise in boycott efforts against their agricultural products across Europe, according to a report published Wednesday by the Hebrew outlet Ynet.
The growing backlash, triggered by ongoing public opposition to 'Israel’s' war in Gaza, has led to both formal and informal actions by major retailers, with some suppliers even noting hesitations from markets as far as Japan.
The Ynet report cites exporters saying that European countries like Belgium and Ireland have effectively begun boycotting 'Israeli' produce. In recent weeks, Italy’s and the UK’s Co-op chains announced they would stop selling 'Israeli' products, and now other retailers—such as the UK’s Waitrose and Germany’s Aldi—are reportedly following suit, even without public declarations.
US, Israel move to block UN effort to shut down Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
The United States and Israel are working behind the scenes to block a United Nations and European-led initiative aimed at dismantling the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), Ynet learned Sunday. The initiative came after a closed session of the UN Security Council held on Friday, after which the UN reportedly instructed its agencies and affiliated organizations to cease all cooperation with the foundation.
“Some organizations are threatening not to cooperate with the foundation and are spreading lies about indiscriminate fire and drug distribution, all to derail this initiative. If this were going through UN channels, which have shown support for Hamas, it would be embraced quietly. This isn’t about concern for Gaza—it’s pure double standards,” he also said.
US, Israel move to block UN effort to shut down Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
Close allies work to shield Gaza Humanitarian Foundation from UN-led dismantling efforts; officials accusing Russia of fabricating claims to undermine aid coordinationItamar Eichner (ynetnews)
like this
Maeve likes this.
The move followed unsubstantiated claims by Russia's representativeaccusations dismissed by diplomats familiar with the situation
In western media-speak our unnamed sources are always "familiar with the situation", but theirs are always "unsubstantiated. "
"Our job is not merely to report the news, but to influence the way people feel about it", said a corporate news executive speaking on condition of anonymity.
like this
Maeve likes this.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Do What You Love
Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.
My dad used to say this to me. He didn’t come up with it of course. Searching for the source, I see attribution to Marc Anthony. How it came to be a 70-80 year old man was quoting a singer to me I’d bet money he’d never heard, I’ll never know. Maybe he didn’t either.
The basic idea behind the quote is that what you’re doing won’t feel like work if it’s something you love doing anyway. I mean, think of the thing you want to be doing right now instead of reading this post. Your favorite thing in the world. Now, along comes some idiot who offers to pay you to do that very thing! How can you possibly say no?
There’s a darker aspect to this quote that I don’t think people consider though. If you take the thing you love and do that for work, you’re turning what you love into a job. This is a trap that I’ve fallen into. Multiple times.
Do What You Love
Mostly The Lonely Howls Of Mike Baying His Ideological Purity At The Moonmikestone.me
Seems like an odd place to post this but I'll bite.
Even the things I love doing involve work. If I want to do some sewing I still need to tidy up before and afterwards, for example, or spend time pinning stuff (and then taping up the numerous stab wounds). It's a bit reductive.
Instead I try to get paid for things that require minimal emotional "work" from me - that is to say, things that don't leave me sapped of energy to work on my passion projects. I don't dislike what I am paid to do but I'm not super enthused about it. That means that when I'm done working I've still got the creative juice to work on stuff I actually want to do.
If instead I have to spend my working days pushing myself through stuff then I tend to be left with nothing in the tank, even if I still have time left at the end of the day. Instead I get paid to do something I'm good at but that doesn't usually involve extended periods of advanced problem solving or frequent uphill battles of effort (there's always a bit, of course, it's not a perfect solution!). That isn't to say what I do is easy, but much of the stuff involved is stuff I've been doing for twenty years so is comparatively easy for me.
giantpaper likes this.
If you take the thing you love and do that for work, you’re turning what you love into a job. This is a trap that I’ve fallen into. Multiple times.
Exactly. It gets corrupted by the 10% shittiest customers, with their shitty understanding of others and the world, who end up taking 90% of your time.
I like a good fried egg on sunday morning. How would you like fried eggs every day, we will pay you for it? Oh and the egg comes with poo from the dirtiest most stinky morons we can find. Lucky you.
I see attribution to Marc Anthony
It was around long, long before Marc Anthony. Also, you are being way too cynical. It's really just saying that if ya can, you should try to make a living out of something you are passionate about.
Yes, there are people who love what they do for a living so much, that they never wanna quit doing it. I am one of them. I own my own company.
Think of musicians, or actors. Some of them legit love what they are doing and never wanna stop doing it. My grandfather owned an Antique store. His entire life was that store and even when he was in the hospital, he was trying to get back to his Antique shop ASAP. My father was same way. And it's probably why I own my own company.
New Linux Kernel Drama: Torvalds Drops Bcachefs Support After Clash
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e TVA like this.
Ah, sorry to read - I like the idea of Bcachefs and would have been happy to have it ready for production eventually.
OTOH it seems the recent years I read more about the drama about Bcachefs commits to the kernel, than about any technical parts of Bcachefs.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e TVA like this.
like this
Squiddlioni, Endymion_Mallorn, Mordikan e TVA like this.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e TVA like this.
There is no reason that Kent Overstreet needed to do this.
I love bcachefs but I am so angry at him for making this happen.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e TVA like this.
There is in this case, and why Linus did accept the patch in the end. Previous cases less so though which is why Linus is so pissed at this one.
The reason for this new feature is to help fix data loss on users systems - which is a fine line between a bug and a new feature really. There is precedent for this type on thing in RC releases from other filesystems as well. So the issue in this instance is a lot less black and white.
That doesn't excuse previous behaviour though.
like this
TVA likes this.
If he cant communicate with linus as to why his patch is actually bugfix then he cant contribute to the kernel.
My uneducated kernel take. Flexibility is acceptable and desirable in small projects or low impact projects.
When the majority of the internet and a good chunk of PC are dependent on your project, predictability and stability is much more important than flexibility.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn likes this.
Reading all the comments (between Kent and Linux), the problem is that the bcachefs dev thinks that his project (the filesystem) is the critically important one and that the Linux kernel needs to bend to his will.
I am a bcachefs user but it is pretty damn obvious to me that the production Linux kernel is more important than an experimental filesystem.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e TVA like this.
Yeah, this one is on Kent... again.
He posted on Patreon that there'll be a DKMS module. In my opinion, this should have been the option from the very beginning and upstreaming at a later point in time. It would have avoided a lot of drama. And now bcachefs is kind of tainted. The only way I ever see it back in mainline is there is an independent downstream of Kent's kernel that has no connection to him whatsoever.
Shame because I had very good experience with the filesystem. Definitely better than when btrfs was new. But Linus is unfortunately right; Kent is unable to follow agreed collaboration rules.
Unfortunate situation that could have been avoided entirely. Though I don't want to be too harsh on Kent. He spent a lot of time and work on bcachefs and it's his most important project. As such, he's more passionate about all of this. But the same can be said for Linus and the kernel on the other side.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
Anyone else here actively put off by Linux drama and headlines like "Torvalds Drops support After Clash!"
EDIT: New rule?
like this
TVA likes this.
Filesystems are incredibly antiquated, and while I don't agree with Kent's attitude, it is very important in the long run that filesystems catch back up.
As it stands just about any enterprise system you can poke a stick at is rolling their own customised file storage system, with a traditional filesystem typically being a misshapen dead weight sitting somewhere in the middle of it - existing because it's the only thing the kernel can integrate with.
It is pretty important that this trend reverses, and bcachefs was a big step in the right direction. Unfortunate that Kent is the way he is.
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
At the very least, it would be far more of a circus, as the follow-up articles would read "LINUX KERNEL CREATOR LINUS TORVALDS MAKES DEVESTATING REPLY TO FOSS DRAMA!"
But yeah, I think shit like that would just make devs want to go work for a company, because at least when they make a shitty closed sourced, exploitive program people are mad at the company, not them, specifically. They don't have to deal with this shit.
like this
TVA likes this.
Elon Musk’s ‘America’ party could focus on a few pivotal congressional seats
The new US political party that Elon Musk has boasted about bankrolling could initially focus on a handful of attainable House and Senate seats while striving to be the decisive vote on major issues amid the thin margins in Congress.Tesla and SpaceX’s multibillionaire CEO mused about that approach on Friday in a post on X, the social media platform he owns, as he continued feuding with Donald Trump over the spending bill that the president has signed into law. On Saturday, without immediately elaborating, the former Trump adviser announced on X that he had created the so-called America party.
“One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,” wrote Musk, who is the world’s richest person and oversaw brutal cuts to the federal government after Trump’s second presidency began in January. “Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring they serve the true will of the people.”
Ross Perot already tried this gambit. Billions of dollars can't buy a political party starting from scratch. Musk has always been more successful as an investor who turns around and claims to be the founder.
Not to mention, Fox News will no doubt find any snippet they can to tear him down after being the golden boy for a while.
I point this out because I think he can only pull from non-MAGA conservatives, and I've no idea what his approval rating is amongst them. The rest of us know he's a drug-addled Nazi.
A phased start makes logical sense instead of trying to build out a 50-state network Day 1. But I see no way to critical mass, even at the congressional district level, for a win as opposed to being a spoiler.
Elon Musk’s proposed new political party could focus on a few pivotal congressional seats
Billionaire said his ‘America party’ would try to turn attainable House and Senate seats to decide major issuesRamon Antonio Vargas (The Guardian)
Which hedge fund owns this sea?
Critical aid and support to the people of Gaza—only translatable as this is yet another way we will annihilate you. Johnnie Moore is an Evangelical leader who began his career as Senior Vice President for Communications for Liberty University—the private Evangelical school founded by Jerry Falwell Sr. [https://electronicintifada.net/content/father-christian-zionism-leaves-building/6923] and went on to found the Kairo Company, a public relations firm based in Glendale, California. The group insists: We get the job done… Whatever it takes. If we’re harping on words, a pause for Kairos’ stated approach:
Which hedge fund owns this sea?
In Gaza, starvation is weaponized, aid is corrupted, and humanitarianism is hijacked by profiteers and war criminals posing as saviors, as Taylor Miller exposes in this searing indictment of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and its genocidal complici…Taylor Miller (Which hedge fund owns this sea?)
like this
Maeve likes this.
PipeWire 1.4.6 Adds New Option to Disable RAOP, Improves the ALSA Plugin
PipeWire 1.4.6 Adds New Option to Disable RAOP, Improves the ALSA Plugin - 9to5Linux
PipeWire 1.4.6 open-source server for handling audio/video streams and hardware on Linux is now available for download with various fixes.Marius Nestor (9to5Linux)
It is great. I actually was a heavy critic of pulseaudio and stuck with ALSA on my desktop for as long as I could (until last year) by using Gentoo with USE="alsa -pulseaudio", the X-Fi's hardware mixing and automatic S/PDIF passthrough.
I tried to switch to pulseaudio a couple of times whenever I read one of those "it's good now, trust me bro" articles, but it wasn't, ever. It had and still has a huge amount of hard-coded, opinionated, often perplexing, behavioral quirks that made it feel like it just fought me every step of the way.
Pipewire on the other hand does not only have saner defaults, almost everything is softcoded with a great Lua plugin API. Don't like a default routing choice or want to automate your own, Wireplumber got you covered. Last year my X-Fi failed (or rather got flakey) and I had to choose between buying another used one or moving to PW. Almost everything worked out of the box on PW the way I like it, except a few details which were almost all covered by the settings. For the last problem, encoded streams not clearing the output, I wrote my own routing plugin.
The documentation for that API isn't necessarily the best, but it's easy to start from something small and work your way to understanding how to get the result you want.
GitHub - lucius-martius/wp-clear-for-passthrough: A wireplumber linker script that clears output devices for passthrough streams
A wireplumber linker script that clears output devices for passthrough streams - lucius-martius/wp-clear-for-passthroughGitHub
If it's a pure DAC, it's default output will likely be between 1 to 2 Volts RMS. If your listening on iems or ~30 Ohm headphones that is gonna be crazy loud. It seems like you are using digital audio control to manage this (i.e., the audio level in your DE), which is possible, but certainly not ideal. It also is kinda bad for the audio quality, as you are digitally remixing it, and if you ever switch to high impedance headphones (or already have), the output current will be sub-ideal.
If I'm assessing your situation correctly, then this is quite easy to solve though. You just need a preamp! This will give a nice knob to control audio with much more precision and finesse. I know that both JDS Labs and Schiit Audio offer headphone amps with built in preamps in the USA. I can highly recommend the JDS Labs Atom Amp 2. In Europe your a little more limited, but FiiO has some nice options I think.
Of course none of this is necessary if you don't want audiophile levels of quality, but it would boost the audio quality (presuming your DAC doesn't have a proper preamp), and would certainly give you a tactile, wonderful knob.
I can certainly attest that my HD600s sound quite a bit better out of a JDS Labs Atom Amp 2 than out of just my DAC or—god forbid—my Mobo audio... They sound even better out of my vintage 100W Onkyo amp, of course, but really not by much. I am really impressed by the Atom Amp. I initially just bought it for travelling, but it has now basically become my main amp lol.
Okay, ramble over.
RAOP stands for Remote Audio Output Protocol and is the key to enabling Airplay on Linux
medium.com/@ed.sav/enabling-ai…
Enabling Airplay from Linux - Edwin Savarimuthu - Medium
Apple eco system esp when it comes to music works well for those who are fully in it. While I like the Apple laptop, my desktop has remained a purpose built (usually by me) Linux workstation/home…Edwin Savarimuthu (Medium)
Spies For Empire: Beware UN-Affiliated Organisations
On June 13th, the Zionist entity carried out an unprovoked, criminal military strike on Iran. While its impact was limited, with Tehran’s counterattack far more devastating, Israel’s targeted assassination of a number of Iranian nuclear scientists indicates Tel Aviv knew their identities and locations with some precision. Coincidentally, a day prior to the entity’s broadside, Press TV published documents indicating the International Atomic Energy Agency previously provided Israeli intelligence the names of several Iranian nuclear scientists, who were subsequently killed.
Other documents indicate IAEA chief Rafael Grossi enjoys a close, clandestine relationship with Israeli officials, and has frequently acted upon their orders. The files are part of a wider trove obtained by Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, containing unprecedented insights into Tel Aviv’s secret, illegal nuclear weapons capability, and its relationships with Europe, the US and other countries, among other bombshell material. The tranche could well shed further light on the IAEA’s brazen, murderous collusion with the entity.
Further reinforcing interpretations the IAEA assisted Israel’s June 13th strike on Iran, a day prior, the Association’s Board of Governors declared Tehran “in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.” The basis for this finding, which provided Tel Aviv with a propaganda pretext for its illegal attack, was an IAEA report published two weeks prior. The document provided no new information - its dubious charges related “to activities dating back decades” at three sites where allegedly, until the early 2000s, “undeclared nuclear material” was handled.
With the “12 day war” between Iran, Israel, and its Western puppet masters now over, US President Donald Trump has expressed optimism he can both broker peace between Tehran and the Zionist entity, and finalise a new nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic. Both outcomes seem highly implausible. At the very least, there is little chance of IAEA inspectors being permitted anywhere near Iran’s nuclear sites ever again, given the Association’s intimate covert relationship with officials in Tel Aviv, and complicity in its attacks old and potentially new.
Spies For Empire: Beware UN-Affiliated Organisations
All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the enormous generosity of my readers.Kit Klarenberg (Global Delinquents)
Thom Tillis won’t seek re-election after clash with Trump over ‘big beautiful bill’
Thom Tillis announced on Sunday that he will not run for re-election to the US Senate next year, one day after the North Carolina Republican’s vote against Donald Trump’s signature piece of domestic legislation prompted the president to launch a barrage of threats and insults – as well as promise to support a primary challenger to defeat him in their party’s 2026 primary.
“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” Tillis said in a statement sent to reporters.
“As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven’t exactly been excited about running for another term”, he added. “It’s not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election.”
Thom Tillis won’t seek re-election after clash with Trump over big beautiful bill
President insulted Republican senator and threatened to back his primary challenger after he opposed domestic billEdward Helmore (The Guardian)
GUI/App to automate key presses in linux wayland
GitHub - Net-Mist/wdotool: xdotool for wayland in python
xdotool for wayland in python. Contribute to Net-Mist/wdotool development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
I know it is not a gui, but until you find one:
it worked quite well to paste the documentation to chatgpt and ask it to make happen exactly what you want.
GitHub - Jmgr/actiona: Cross-platform automation tool
Cross-platform automation tool. Contribute to Jmgr/actiona development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
Looks like it doesn't: wiki.actiona.tools/doku.php?id…
I'm actually looking for something like this too because Autokey and pyautogui (and antimicrox on another machine) is the only software keeping me on X.
Dunno if it would meet your needs, but I've been using Input Remapper for binding macros to various key presses and mouse buttons under Wayland. It does prompt for root access, but it's a GUI. It supports any input method, as far as I can tell. It even supports my tablet.
I use it to bind stuff like hold(key(BTN_LEFT).wait(100)) to some button to repeatedly left click while I'm holding that button down.
GitHub - sezanzeb/input-remapper: 🎮 ⌨ An easy to use tool to change the behaviour of your input devices.
🎮 ⌨ An easy to use tool to change the behaviour of your input devices. - sezanzeb/input-remapperGitHub
ydotool.
GitHub - jinliu/kdotool: xdotool-like for KDE Wayland
xdotool-like for KDE Wayland. Contribute to jinliu/kdotool development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
Bad issues with system load on Mint Desktop
Hi!. Currently running Linux Mint 22.1, but i suspect it's not strictly a distro issue. This laptop was running VERY well but was outdated, running Mint 19.3, some things were unable to be installed because the system libraries were old (didn't expect Calibre to be one of them, figures), so i updated all the way to that moment's current version which was Mint 21.3. All of a sudden it felt like the laptop got downgraded two whole computer tech generations. As soon as i ask it to do something mildly complicated that made it break no sweat on Mint 19, it gets VERY slow, all the cores start running at max, system load increases, until it finishes doing whatever it was doing several minutes later, something between a couple of minutes when lucky, to 20 or more. Typically what triggers the issue is something on the browser (what i use the most on the computer is browser tabs and lots of terminals) but not exclusively. Thought it was the browser but replicated it on an empty Firefox profile, and has triggered with simpler stuff like the Discord client. Been trying to find the issue for a while trying to avoid a full reinstall, no luck so far.
If i were to describe how it feels, it's like there was a bottleneck on tasks being done by the system, as soon as you ask it to do something mildly complex it chokes on it and tasks accumulate. No idea if it's some kind of kernel misconfiguration, if it's some hardware incompatibility, or something else entirely, checking the changelogs of Mint all the way between 19.3 and 21.3 showed nothing i could pin this onto (or at least nothing i could notice).
The nuclear option would be a brand new blank install but I'd MUCH rather avoid that if possible, made the comfortable but now unwise choice of a single partition for everything (instead of a separate /home and whatnot as i used to do) so reinstallation would wipe it completely, if i must then i must but much rather not.
Would welcome VERY much ideas on stuff to check or try.
Edit: It's got an NVME drive, which seems to be healthy as far as i can see
Edit: When it happens it doesn't seem to matter how much RAM is free, seen it happen with only 8 of the 32Gb of RAM in use and zero swap
Edit: Found a great way to describe how it feels like: Have you done heavy video encoding on a computer that's adequate for the task but not more than that, and noticed how everything in it stalls heavily, even if there's plenty of RAM free and the computer feels like it's giving everything to that task only? Pretty much that, but for nearly everything even moderately heavy
GE-Proton10-6 and GE-Proton10-7 Released
HOTFIX: GE-Proton10-7:
- Re-added the PROTON_PREFER_SDL option. When this envvar is set steam input and hidraw are disabled so that SDL takes priority over controller support.
HOTFIX (GE-Proton10-6):
The wine-wayland patches needed rebasing and needed force pushing due to a problem with a few commits in them noted by the author that can cause some crashing, making GE-Proton10-5 version invalid.
The 10-5 release was reverted due to the force push per the request of the wine-wayland patch set author, thus the version bumped to 10-6. It's one of those view weird instances where you will see a version missing in the releases. (This also happened in the past with media foundation stuff that Valve yelled at me about). Oopsie.
Changelog (GE-Proton10-5):
Nothing too major here, mostly just an update to upstream's code since it's been about 30 days.
- Wine-wayland patches have been updated/rebased, should fix some nvidia crashes, and no longer need this mesa patch: gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/me…
- patches added to help with Wuthering Waves.
- protonfixes updated
- protonfix added for Artificial Academy 2
- protonfix added for Persona 4 Arena Ultimax
- protonfix added for Anno 1800 from Ubisoft Store
- protonfix added for Anno 1800
Release GE-Proton10-7 Released · GloriousEggroll/proton-ge-custom
HOTFIX: GE-Proton10-7: Re-added the PROTON_PREFER_SDL option. When this envvar is set steam input and hidraw are disabled so that SDL takes priority over controller support.GitHub
Hopefully with GE I'll stop seeing 130 GB log files from Forza 5. 😂
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/32472965
Edward Helmore
Sun 29 Jun 2025 13.06 EDT"Mamdani said he was inspired by the US civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr, who once remarked: “Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.”
He then reiterated his intent to raise taxes on New York’s wealthiest as part of a campaign pledge “to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods”.
“I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality... "
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
Edward Helmore
Sun 29 Jun 2025 13.06 EDT"Mamdani said he was inspired by the US civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr, who once remarked: “Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.”
He then reiterated his intent to raise taxes on New York’s wealthiest as part of a campaign pledge “to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods”.
“I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality... "
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
Democratic mayoral candidate denies Trump’s accusation that he is communist while reaffirming push to tax wealthyEdward Helmore (The Guardian)
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/32472965
Edward Helmore
Sun 29 Jun 2025 13.06 EDT"Mamdani said he was inspired by the US civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr, who once remarked: “Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.”
He then reiterated his intent to raise taxes on New York’s wealthiest as part of a campaign pledge “to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods”.
“I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality... "
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
Edward Helmore
Sun 29 Jun 2025 13.06 EDT"Mamdani said he was inspired by the US civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr, who once remarked: “Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.”
He then reiterated his intent to raise taxes on New York’s wealthiest as part of a campaign pledge “to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods”.
“I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality... "
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
Democratic mayoral candidate denies Trump’s accusation that he is communist while reaffirming push to tax wealthyEdward Helmore (The Guardian)
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
Edward Helmore
Sun 29 Jun 2025 13.06 EDT
"Mamdani said he was inspired by the US civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr, who once remarked: “Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There has to be a better distribution of wealth for all of God’s children in this country.”
He then reiterated his intent to raise taxes on New York’s wealthiest as part of a campaign pledge “to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods”.
“I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality... "
Trump threatens to cut off New York City funds if Mamdani ‘doesn’t behave’
Democratic mayoral candidate denies Trump’s accusation that he is communist while reaffirming push to tax wealthyEdward Helmore (The Guardian)
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
You Forgot Poland
“You forgot Poland” is a popular catchphrase adopted by George W. Bush’s detractors to poke fun at his tactless rebuttal during the first debate of US Presidential elections in 2004.ichbinjosefmatula (Know Your Meme)
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
Why do you think Russia invaded Ukraine? Like, what is their primary goal. The impetus that drove them to approve the invasion.
Secondly, what do you think the functioning role of NATO is?
They wanted to prevent them from joining because they couldn't bully them if they managed to join. I think that answers for both.
Now your turn to answer my original question, please.
So the underlying, material reason for why you think Russia invaded Ukraine, was because they wanted to "bully" Ukraine? And that NATO is just an international "anti-bullying" alliance? No, lmao.
NATO is an alliance of imperialist nations. They band together, agreeing to each exploit their own corner. The biggest players are the US Empire, as well as the former hegemons Germany, the UK, and France. The other NATO members play along so that they can ride along on this system of monopoly capitalism expropriating vast wealth from South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and more. If countries go against NATO desires economically, they get bombed, like Yugoslavia, Libya, etc.
NATO promised Gorbachev that they wouldn't expand eastward, decades ago. This is because originally, NATO was an anti-communist alliance. However, with the fall of the USSR, the west needed a new enemy, so they stuck with Russia even after Russia tried to join NATO. With NATO building up in Ukraine, following the Euromaidan coup of 2014 cementing the Ukrainian Nationalists as the leaders of Ukraine, and their relentless shelling of the donbass region, Russia invaded as it didn't feel like it wanted a belligerent neighbor, and decided to take pre-emptive action.
The entire invasion never would have happened without NATO.
It only makes sense if your conclusion is that, genetically, Russians just love attacking people. If you ignore the real, materialist explanation for events and substitute it with a deliberate refusal to acknowledge the actual causes, then you're only left with racism. Earlier, your only reason was "bullying," so if you really do believe it's a genetic thing then that checks out.
I'd love you to prove me wrong about that, though.
I don't know how you got from countries and military alliances into genetic traits to attack other countries. Pretty big leap imo.
I've heard some .ml people call NATO a virus but I didn't think it was literal
It's pretty simple, I explained how and why Russia invaded Ukraine, and NATO's role. You never responded to that, and instead said Russia invaded Ukraine because it can only "bully" non-NATO countries. There's no materialism in your explanation, no underlying economic reasoning, just pure "Russia invaded Ukraine because Russians are evil" nonsense.
You've also been vaguely suggesting that western imperialism is a good thing, so that chauvanism tracks. Russia in your eyes is a "bullying country" and NATO in your eyes is an "anti-bully alliance," which holds no actual water.
I was just saying that NATO countries haven't been attacked by Russia whereas non-NATO countries have, so it might be that the membership has maybe something to do with it.
I thought it was a simple point but you've since brought up genetics and good and evil into it, which honestly surprises me since I don't know where you got any of that
Why do you think Russia invaded Ukraine? Like, what is their primary goal. The impetus that drove them to approve the invasion.
Because they want to become a global power once again. That is their dream. They want to be imperialists themselves, but unfortunately for them, they have failed to do so. In the past decades they have poked their noses into Africa and the Middle East, with some success. But simultaneously they have lost their grip on regions they previously considered to be under their imperialist umbrella. It started with Georgia, which they solved with violence. Next it was Ukraine, and then Syria. And then all the unrest in Belarus. They got spooked that their imperialist dream was failing, so they went in to change the regime in Ukraine. But that didn't work out as they planned. And to top that, they also lost their foothold in Syria completely. And now, just recently, they are losing Azerbaijan too.
Secondly, what do you think the functioning role of NATO is?
Honestly, it is to protect US geopolitical interests in Europe. Making Europe depend on the US for its defense. But it is not that bad of a deal for Europe, as it keeps the peace (in "western" Europe).
Russia was never "imperialist" in the way the west is. They never had an Empire as the Soviet Union. Russia cannot become an empire by invading other countries, imperialism functions by massive financial capital to extract from the global south. Russia doesn't have the capital for that, and is more industrialized than western countries that need it to stay afloat.
As for NATO, it's to ensure western imperialism stays intact. The US is the main beneficiary, but western Europe participates because they also profit from brutal exploitation of the global south.
They never had an Empire as the Soviet Union.
But they did. That's why Mao called them social imperialists.
As for NATO, it's to ensure western imperialism stays intact. The US is the main beneficiary, but western Europe participates because they also profit from brutal exploitation of the global south.
That just brings into question how NATO is a threat to Russia then? The only way that would be true is that either a) Russia sees them as imperialist competition, or b) the threat is that Russia can't attack its neighbors without retribution.
They weren't. The Soviet Union never developed the financial capital with which to extract super profits, it had no colonies. Mao was wrong. The Sino-Soviet split was filled with drama, and both sides were right about some things and wrong about others.
NATO is a threat the same way your neighbors that hate you all buying guns and joining together millitarily is a threat. In the event of war, it's right on your doorstep. Encirclement is a known tactic, the US does it in another form, by using aircraft carriers and millitary bases.
This thing that keeps happening to a lot of the countries around Russia that are not in NATO? Completely wouldn't happen if no one was in NATO.
Sure.
If NATO didn’t exist, there would be no reason for the Russo-Ukrainian war to begin with, as Russia doesn’t stand to gain much, if anything, economically.
What reason do you think is behind the war?
It was generally a pro-western coup. You can't really disentangle the EU from NATO from the US along clean lines, they have lots of overlap. NATO, in 2021, affirmed its plans of further integrating Ukraine.
Really, Euromaidan was sparked by Yanukovych pivoting away from the more predatory IMF loan offer to the less predatory Russian loan offer. Indeed, the loan from Russia had better terms, the IMF loan would have forced Ukraine to slash their healthcare and education budgets, and stop subsidies in natural gas (which kept energy prices low) as part of the loan terms.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
Nope.
Those questions are not tough for them at all. The propaganda has it covered and they will give some version of "we tried our gosh darned best to bring the savages freedom and democracy but their barbarian culture was simply too primitive".
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
There was intense conflict along ethnic lines on both sides. NATO didn't intervene to "stop a genocide," it bombed hundreds of state-owned factories and murdered over 2000 civilians (including 300 Albanians, which NATO claimed to be "protecting"). The real drive was to destroy a nation that dared to be a part of the Non-Aligned Movement, and make them subservient to western interests, opened up for foreign plundering.
The ethnic violence was horrible, but NATO didn't really fix it, it took advantage of it as a reason to get involved and achieve the aims of western powers economically.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
He is pointing out the obvious contradiction on NATOs justification on their war crimes.
If they were worried about s genocide in yugoslavia and forced to intervene, why aren't they doing the same with israel? Have you asked yourself this question?
- lemmy.ml/comment/19469789
- <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of…>
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
Bombs were falling on civilian targets nowhere near Kosovo. Various bridges, schools, hospitals, a chemical plant in Pančevo that almost destroyed the entire city, the Chinese embassy, a bomb fragment fell literally in my family's garden. Hundreds of civilians died, my grandma almost impaled on a table from a bomb shockwave and the glass shattered onto the cradle I was in (I was 1 year old at the time), but luckily my mom placed protection around me just in case. This was on the far north of Serbia.
To be clear, OP is a tankie who shouldn't be given any attention or a platform (I checkes their post history), but the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was a campaign that caused untold suffering to countless civilians (be it in injuries, deaths, or just going through every day not knowing whether you and your loved ones will be alive tomorrow) that had absolutely nothing to do with Kosovo, something that left scars in society that are still felt. It was not simply "disturbing a genocide". Not to mention that it was an attack launched without the approval of the UN.
What do you not like about the EU
centralizing control is bad. It gives less freedom and autonomy to the common man.
A citizen of a country in the EU votes for their parliment or congress or whatever to decide things, but then the EU parliment can just override whatever your elected officals decide. Doesn't that piss you off? Imagine an entire continent being an HOA neighborhood. Where the HOA gets to dictate everything you do with your own house that they don't own, don't pay bills for and don't maintain for you... and that's a metaphor for the EU
I wouldn't just get rid of the EU if I had my way, I'd de-centralize as much authority as possible down to every town being a self governing local community.
But with a constituion of rights that are always off the table for any debate.
Full bodily autonomy, free speech, gun ownership, right to privacy, right to remain silent, right to a fair trial with legal representation..competent legal represenation that won't pressure you into admitting anything...basically a set of rights that allow you to do what you want with your own things and your own land
If you have a problem with gun ownership. You won't once you've had to deal with someone invading your home. What? you think calling the police is going to stop a home invader from hurting you?
"hey I just called the police!"
"oh shit! you got me! Guess I'll just sit here and wait to be arrested"
I can understand why local governing is nice. You always feel more involved and represented when you actually know the people in your government. But the European Parliament is elected as well. I would personally support making it more important and taking some authority away from the commission and council. But other than that, I am actually relatively happy with the EU.
It brought many great things with it, especially free trade and free travel. If you are a citizen of any EU country and move to another EU country, you have almost the same rights as a full citizen of that country. I just love that. Crossing a border between EU countries is like crossing a state border. This makes the lives of so many people so much easier. The same applies for the many streamlined regulations.
In addition, I mostly also like the rulings of the EU. I lt often stops harmful laws from passing (especially things like censorship). Sadly, some countries just ignore EU law without much consequences, which has to be stopped in my opinion.
In some way, I think the EU actually gives some more power to the people. If you imagine Austria passing a low, the world may ignore that. But if the EU passes a law, it is important and the US or China must pay attention.
And I don't really know what you are talking about gun control here. I would never support wide spread gun ownership, since I personally really hate terrorism and enjoy the low gun violence rates. It obviously happens, but much less than in the US.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
The US is making full usage of the bases in Europe to support Israel, without them it would have been logistically very hard; short of like the invasion of Afghanistan without the collaboration of Pakistan. These US bases fall under the US European Command (EUCOM) but are integrated into NATO’s architecture. The European NATO members, not only provide the bases, but subsidize the costs (e.g., infrastructure, utilities), therefore, becoming participants with the Israeli Campaign.
Countries can have some say. Spain, for instance, blocked some US airplanes destined to some campaigns, but it is just symbolic since the US just need not to declare the intention (or lie) and that is the end of the restrictions. It is not like Spain is going to inspect the vast amount of tonnage the US military is moving through Spanish ports, let alone between US bases. US could easily avoid the bases in Spain and use instead Germany, Italy and Morocco, but why would do so, when you can just humiliate your vassals in their face and have no repercussion at all... same as blowing up Nord Stream 2.
2) the ones that do, do it as individual states. Same as backing Ukraine is the decision of every individual state rather than a NATO project
3) NATO is not a Tennis Organization. 😀
- it is not true that every single county does that
For starters, every single member has diplomatic ties with the settler-colonial entity (save for Turkey's intermittent "severing ties" posturing), that alone is substantial material support. Now, I'm not going to list every single notable contribution to the settler-colonial entity for each member state in that organization, so please point out which member state does not contribute to the baby-and-women-murdering sex offender haven "state".
- the ones that do, do it as individual states
nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_21…
NATO and Israel have worked together for almost 30 years, cooperating in domains such as science and technology, counter terrorism, civil preparedness, countering weapons of mass destruction and women, peace and security. Over the last year cooperation has grown, with NATO welcoming Israel’s intention to strengthen the naval interoperability by recognising Israel as a partner for NATO’s Operation Sea Guardian, and Israel’s Defence Force military medical academy now serving as a unique asset for NATO’s Partnership Training and Education Centres community.
And even if that was somehow true, which it isn't, it still doesn't change the fact that every single country in that T-word organization provides material support.
Secretary General welcomes Israeli President to NATO HQ
On Thursday (26 January 2023) Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog to NATO Headquarters.NATO
Well if you count decades old recognition of a state as a support of what is going currently in Gaza, i will not spend time to find any examples because on that premise you would be factually correct, but your premise is wrong. Past recognition of a state does not automatically mean support for its actions, which you seem to imply.
Coopertation on anything else with NATO not really adressing the point, as we are discussing the situation in Gaza specifically, not Israels ties with NATO in general.
Why do redditors read the first sentence, somehow completely take away the wrong information from the first sentence and then proceed to ignore the rest of the comment as they refuse to elaborate their position?
For starters, every single member has diplomatic ties with the settler-colonial entity. Two things that are explicitly clear here:
- This does not only equate to "past recognition". Diplomatic ties entail cooperation and a relationship between two states that facilitiates, among other things, trade and transport agreements and citizen travel between the two states. This is diplomacy 101. That said, it should not be hard to understand why having diplomatic ties to a settler-colonial entity counts as support for the genocide of the Palestinians.
- This is not the only point being made here. This is why I prefaced with "For starters". The fact of the matter is every NATO member does indeed provide material support to the vermin psycho-"state" full of grown men posing to the camera wearing clothes of the children and women they murder/violate.
Also, NATO ties to the entity is PERTINENT to the point that NATO members and NATO itself provides material support to the entity to slaughter Palestinians. It's not hard to understand from the excerpt what "30 years of cooperation on domains such as science and technology, counter-terrorism" etc.. means. I just provided proof that material support from NATO was and is still happening, straight from NATO.
Instead of engaging in deeply unserious one-note retorts that only serve to prove your lack of comprehension skills and insane mental gymnastics, point out which member state does not contribute to the baby-and-women-murdering sex offender haven “state”.
Redditors?
About diplomacy 101
My country has diplomatic relations with russia for example. We do however not cooperate in most aspects. In fact we are on the list of their enemies.
My country also has diplomatic ties with israel. And we do cooperate. Mostly in education. My country is also a NATO member without a single US soldier or base present. Also opposed to current Gaza events.
Vermin psycho state is a bit too much for me. I'd just stop the discussion here.
who didnt turn out for Biden/Harris
And this isn't even true. There was just a shift in the margins
Making things better for others: whining about tankies and socialism on lemmy and doing a crappy imitation of Molyneux masterdebater trying to defend crapitalism.
Anyway, do you even have a point or do you get paid by the comment?
Still have nothing to point to that you did.
Good to know how dedicated you are to your cause. Maybe dial back on attacking people if you aren’t contributing.
Your only provable contribution to anything is spamming lemmy with libertarian word salads pretending to be a liberal but defending capitalism and trying to make crappy gotchas about what you supposedly did on the weekend.
You're sure dedicated to your cause lol.
Pure mind palace stupidity. You're walking extremely worn paths used by people who are stupid but trying to sound smart. The "everyone is wrong" armchair wisdom that serves no purpose other than giving you an excuse to not investigate your own words.
You don't even seem to know what 'marxist/leftist' theory is categorically but you have the vague notion that 'so much' is disproved.
Put actual brain work behind that statement. I'm sick of watching you get treated with deference despite your bad faith and proud ignorance.
Holy fuck this is spot on.
I'm so tired of hearing "they're so racist"
It's such a terminating clause. Like we don't need to actually understand at a deeper level why guy born a Mexican, still is Mexican but is voting for Trump because.... They're racist against Mexicans????
I'm so done with the left. It's so tiring. They even adapt their messages. I can go back 15 years and still see the exact comments of "they're racist" while right wing dominate spaces seem to come up with new things every 6 months. Soy cuck Wojack probably conjures up a whole era all our minds right? What about "man they're racist" what does that conjure up?
The left should lose the right to call anyone low information voters until they sort themselves the fuck out
Everything is online. Nobody knows you knocked on doors in the neighborhood while people were eating supper. After supper people are logging into their favorite social media and engaging with content. Content which right now is leaning heavily on the right and affecting generations. I'll argue all day that everything you said is exactly what the left is fucked and totally losing everything for the foreseeable future.
Zohran I hope to God succeeds but he's going to need so much support online and the left removed themselves from every platform, they have no connection, structure or voices to organize online, they have no tools to assist. They all hate AI. They think every platforms is racist except fully leftist ones.
TPUSA, Heritage foundation, Cato institute, Koch Bros fucking UFC and barstool sports are all going to really amplify and sabotage Zohran. They have so many ins with business and media, they'll all self sandstone sabotage to make sure the numbers can be amplified ONLINE to as many people as possible. The left is so far behind the times, they have no ability to counter this very foreseeable future.
Then why the fuck do you people show up to protest??
How does it make any sense to you that people will drive miles to some street and stand around while police kick your heads in. You cannot argue protesting publicly is effective yet engagement and capture online is not. What is really fucking crazy is how a lot of the left are convinced a public protest is Mecca while online engagement (which every one is putting money into as you said) is crap.
Almost like the people who put money into the effective methods are convincing their opponent to do the ineffective thing while they convince them the effective methods that they're all invested in is useless.
They're funding what you are doing for free right now. It's insane how thick minded so many of you are. Every comment or content you all make costs them money to counter. It's a numbers game. It costs you nothing. Take every protester willing to show up in the streets and teach them how to create media.
The left is cooked. So much brain rot on the left. You're all calling people who have beat you in every arena as low information. Yet they beat you all, everywhere. How'd that no Kings protest work out?
Online is where opinions are shaped and formed. It's a force multiplier. I'm so done with the left. Have no idea what they're doing. It's like watching people click their fingers in a park all over again.
Um to have an actual real connection to the person you’re talking to and not just talk to some faceless name and avatar on a website? To show people that you actually care about them and that a political project is important enough for you to get your ass off the couch for. To maybe connect with other like minded people so you can organise more?
Holy shit I’m actually starting to realise what people meant when they said the .world people are crazy. How online are you that I have to explain that talking to people in real life is nicer than just communicating online. I order you to touch grass.
Haha touch grass yea so funny dude.
You spend 4 hours and end up having a real conversation with 4 people who were already on board or lonely.
We spent 5 minutes and these comments already had probably 50 people read it.
Keep your moral virtuosity. Make sure as the left continue to lose that you hold it close and live in that bubble of yours. Somehow the left have no ability to adapt or change in a modern world and it shows everyday.
The right are online. They're not door knocking. They're already in everyone's living room. Every single person in your life I bet has told you some right wing point like asking if wearing masks are actually safe or that vaccinations might not work. That's because the right have adapted and continue to capitalize on effective communication, capture and engagement. Something door knocking is not. They have shops with stickers, Facebook groups, they're about to Buy tiktok.
Wake up FFS.
The right have been a more or less hegemonic force since the 80s. There is a reason why I spend hours online. The reason why the right can do all this is because they get paid to. They get millions of funding thrown at them by oligarchs, that’s why they are so visible not because they’re some creative marketing geniuses. Like so many things in life it comes down to resources and who had access to them. Meanwhile the left has to rely on people like me who are going to sacrifice their free time and creativity for something they believe in.
The left has all the things you mentioned as well, and is online as well. Currently one of the biggest podcasts on Patreon is hosted by two lefties. I also want to point out that for most of the lefts history being a leftist meant sacrifice of some sort. If you don’t want to do that fine but stop removed at me about how the left refuses to adapt. We are up against capital, if you haven’t figured that out and what it implies then idk what to do for you.
That’s why going outside and doing things in real life is important fund raising for example is very important. You can also donate to lefty content creators that you like. Currently a bunch of them are getting cancelled or demonetised thanks to their support against genocide. The left has been in decline since the fall of the USSR so idk why you think this is some kind of new phenomena. The fact that they’re slowly making a comeback is actually pretty cool and gives me a small slither of hope sometimes. If you just want an easy ride then join one of the billionaire parties, the pay is better and you’ll have to work less.
I did do for the same reasons. But I question if this speeds things up.
If I was a big think tank charged with changing the public opinion to favor the right wing, my first thing I'd advise you to do was remove political opponents from the view of the general public.
Then once the area has been cleared, it'll be cheaper to flood the zone with messages and opinions and content that shapes public opinion you favor the view I want.
They gave references, you ninny. It doesn't matter if you have references if everyone is bringing a lot more of rhem in to it, which they have.
Again, obstinance should not be confused with being correct. That's just being in denial... You are in denial.
Source: Wikipedia – Social Liberalism
Quote: "Social liberalism is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights, and supports the role of the state to address economic and social issues."
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_l…
Source: Britannica – Liberalism
Quote: "Modern liberalism in the United States includes social liberalism, which supports a welfare state and government intervention in the economy to protect individual rights."
Link: britannica.com/topic/liberalis…
Source: Cambridge Dictionary – Social Liberal
Quote: "A person who believes the government should help improve people’s lives and protect their rights, but also believes in individual freedom."
Link: dictionary.cambridge.org/dicti…
Source: Political Compass
Quote: "Social liberals tend to fall in the bottom-left quadrant of the compass, supporting economic equality and individual freedoms."
Link: politicalcompass.org/
Source: Pew Research Center – Political Typology
Quote: "Solid Liberals and Establishment Liberals are the most consistently left-leaning groups in the typology."
Source: Wikipedia – Social liberalism
Quote: “Social liberalism is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights…”
Quote: "Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centre to centre-left, although there are deviations from these positions to both the political left or right. In modern political discourse, social liberalism is associated with progressivism, a left-liberalism contrasted to the right-leaning neoliberalism, and combines support for a mixed economy with cultural liberalism."
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_l…
Source: Simple English Wikipedia – Social liberalism
Quote: “Social liberalism … endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights.”
Quote: “Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left"
Link: simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci…
Source: Britannica – Liberalism
Quote: “Modern liberals are generally willing to experiment with large‑scale social change to further their project of protecting and enhancing individual freedom.”
Link: britannica.com/question/How-do…
Source: Cambridge Dictionary – Liberalism
Quote: “Liberal political ideas emphasize the need to make new laws as society changes and the need for government to provide social services.”
Link: dictionary.cambridge.org/us/di…
Source: Pew Research Center – Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology
Quote: “Holding liberal positions on nearly all issues, Establishment Liberals are some of the strongest supporters of the current president and the Democratic Party of any political typology group.”
Link: pewresearch.org/politics/2021/…
Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology
Pew Research Center’s political typology provides a roadmap to today’s fractured political landscape. It segments the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values.Reem Nadeem (Pew Research Center)
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.
We're against liberalism as a whole because it's the ideology that justifies capitalism. We're against social liberals because they're seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.
This is a very introductory overview to liberalism:
The most in-depth delving into it is Losurdo's Liberalism - A counter history, but you'd have to read many more foundational texts before that one.
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.m.youtube.com
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libera…
Emerging together does not mean they are dependent on each other.
How many books on this topic have you read? Are you aware of the conflicts between liberals and workers, prisoners, women, and colonized people for over 200 years? Do you know the history of the working class movement and its history of conflicts with liberals since the mid 1800s?
Any one of us can answer these questions. You clearly can't.
😆
Do you even read bro
Yes I read. Like how I read that Wikipedia link and the other supporting links and references I've posted. All saying liberalism is left.
You read books but do you read current news? Most of the world is still debating if they should be free of the government which is a binary that very much places liberalism on the left.
Why are you holding such a Eurocentric perspective in face of the fact that most are not having the anticapitalist vs capitalist discussion you seem to think they are having?
the right to private property
Wow that sounds sooo leftist. I think you're about 150 years late in defining liberalism as "the left"
Capitalism is right-wing; socialism is left-wing. Private property is not about your toothbrush or house, it’s about private ownership of the means of production, which is what capitalism is founded on.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitali…
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit.
Partially true but not universally true. This is like saying Jazz is African American music and classical is white music. You're flattening these things into a very binary categorization. These are not binary categories like this. There's so much nuance.
There's so many more options and honestly I'm worried there's a push you radicalize the left against even considering it after seeing many comments here.
An example of the top of my head is cooperatives. We don't need public ownership of factories and production. We can restructure capitalism and how it works so it is more socialized. Worker owned business. Change the laws. Change how corporations are structured when they go public. Change investing laws since faceless stakeholders is a primary cause of a lot of issues we face.
The options are not capitalism or socialism. That seems like it's a toxic pill that's being pushed in the community. I really advise people to consider there's potentially some radicalization occurring in certain corners. Remember they have a lot of power to push ideas and kill others. If we all know Cambridge and Koch brothers and heritage foundations are out there manipulating things online, maybe it's important to be careful of dominant opinions in the niche corners as they grow.
I already explained elsewhere that it isn't a binary, what's important is which is the principle aspect, public or private ownership. There are elements of private property in socialism, and elements of public in capitalism.
Cooperatives do not eliminate the need for eventual full public ownership. Cooperatives are still based on competition and profit, not fulfilling needs. As cooperatives grow and develop, they will form monopolies, long past when coherent planning and public ownership becomes more efficient at fuflilling needs and growth.
Further, we as the workers cannot restructure capitalism. Capitalism is dominated by capital. In order for workers to have genuine power over the system, we need control of the state, large firms, and key industries, without ownership we cannot pivot to a cooperative society to begin with. Political economic systems are not thoughts in your head, recipes to be picked out, but real, material things, and as such what comes next will be what our current system is economically compelled towards. As centralization is a key side-effect of capitalism, common, collective ownership and planning is what will come next, after revolution sped up by capitalism's own drive for disparity.
Ultimately, you have a very idealist, utopian view, and not a materialist, scientific view. That's why you're running into opposition so heavily.
Being "left of center" is a comment about the Overton Window. People are trying to express to you about how outside of the extremely slanted window, liberals are all conservative, which is wholly and demonstrably correct.
When you're the only one trying to use rose colored glasses, it behooves you to understand that most others will have a different perspective.
It's clear that by avoiding the discussion that you aren't a serious person. I accept sources that aconowledge the historical answers to the questions I asked you.
Again, for the 5th time or so, the categorization of "left" vs "right" originated in France. When debating the power a King should hold, those who were against the monarchy sat on the left, and those who wanted to uphold the monarchy sat on the right. Liberalism, therefore, was a historically progressive and revolutionary ideology, as it was anti-monarchist and pro-bourgeois property. It was left not because it was liberal, it was left because it stood for progression onto the next emerging mode of production, that of bourgeois property.
Now, however, bourgeois property is dominant. Kings hold nearly no power on the global stage. The question of which position is revolutionary, which position stands for progression onto the next mode of production, is to be found in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as was found in the late 1700s. Liberalism is the status quo, as capitalism is the status quo. Socialism, whether it be Marxist, anarchist, etc, is the proletarian position, while liberalism is the bourgeois position, once revolutionary, now reactionary.
The publications that you listed, like Princeton, are portraying a narrow scope based on median viewpoints within liberal society. "Left-liberalism" is used in reference to liberals with socially progressive views, and perhaps supportive of some level of welfare expansion, but this doesn't fundamentally change the property relations in society. It is "left" in comparison to conservativism (which itself is right-liberalism), but right wing overall.
Now, if you can make the case why you believe liberalism to be left, then please, do so, because you haven't outside of linking liberals saying they are left in the context of a liberal-dominated society. Liberalism is not a science, it's a viewpoint, so disagreeing with liberal economists is not the same as disagreeing with the CDC. The PRC's economists are trained in Marxism, and there are far more of them than there are western liberal economists, so the argument that I disagree with economic consensus doesn't hold water unless you take a western exceptionalist viewpoint.
You know who else accepts historical sources, sovereign citizens and freemen-on-the-land. Historical texts are not exactly an authoritative source. It's a classification but isn't a concrete source.
If you cannot point to an authoritative source then I don't believe you to be a serious person. You can continue to express your opinion. But without evidence and sources there's nothing to do here and I think asking you to put forward a source has exposed this.
This is the same problem that radicalized trump supporters. It's the same argument I've seen with them early 2016. Society is broken therefore they used all kinds of niche sources to justify their opinion.
I don't mean "historical source" as an old source, but one that acknowledges the history of the terms. Your beloved Wikipedia explains the origins of liberalism in the same way I did. If I point you to Chinese economics institutions that agree with me, you'll dismiss them. Again, liberalism is not a science, it's an ideology centered around the dominant mode of production.
Even Time Magazine, itself an intensely liberal publication, recognizes the role of property relations in what determines left and right, ultimately chalking up the modern US viewpoint implicitly to the Overton Window, a political outlook that centers the median of any given society, rather than property relations.
This is not the "same argument" that Trump voters made. Again, you rely on equating me to the far-right to emotionally attack me, rather than the logic of my arguments or the overwhelming fact that you only accept western, liberal publications, and precisely the ones that focus on the Overton Window when describing concepts as left and right instead of their origin as property relations. You're making an appeal to authority as your only argument, yet you don't accept non-western sources.
I just wish that people here would take time to explain why liberals are not left instead of just attacking you.
Liberalism is not left because by definition they are socially progressive but economically conservative.
I used to think the liberals are "left" because of the Americam mainstream media (by intentionally muddying political terms) interchange liberal between left. But thanks to , now I know better.
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.www.youtube.com
I think it's a very nuanced position but I still defend that it's center left. Economically conservative I'm assuming means pro capitalist.
I support cooperatives and changing laws to fix how people are allowed to invest in the market. I don't see why those things are not left.
Look at Mondragon Spain as one example of a proven successful example. Like historically successful. They changed how corporations are controlled after WWII and have proven successfully it works.
Cooperatives are neither left nor right. They do not fundamentally change property relations, in that they are based on private property and petite bourgeois class relations. Cooperatives can be part of early socialism, like Huawei in the PRC or the agricultural sectors in the USSR and PRC, or they can be a part of capitalist systems like Mondragon in Spain. At best, they could be considered quasi-socialist.
The reason why "fixing laws about investing" isn't really "left" is because it doesn't alter the base mode of production of society. It keeps capitalism intact, it just tweaks how you interact with it. This makes it less right wing than, say, Nazi Germany, but it doesn't make it left, either.
Leftists -> want the means of production to be publicly owned aka socialism
And you are presuming the discussions being had are about capitalism when they are still debating the role of the government in private ownership.
It’s a eurocentric position. It’s odd how many “leftists” fall into this.
most nations are still debating freedom from the government
citation needed
Both are political left of center views. The political spectrum is not centered on socialism/capitalism.
As the other commenter mentioned, it seems everyone here has a very binary understanding of things. I'd be cautious as I've seen this same binary views with Trump fuck heads in 2016.
sciencedirect.com/topics/socia…
civix.ca/resources/wp-content/…
Liberal/Left-leaning people embrace social services and government intervention in the economy.
Conservative/Right-leaning people support lower taxes, free markets and less government intervention
in the economy.
Libertarians advocate both personal and economic liberty (freedom).
Authoritarians favour strict obedience to authority and government control, at the expense of personal
and economic freedom.
the word left is applied to people and groups that have liberal views.
Why Do “Left” And “Right” Mean Liberal And Conservative?
During election years, the words left and right often bring to mind the political spectrum than they do directions in space. But where do these associations come from?Dictionary.com
I think I get it. Right wing groups like koch Bros and heritage institutes push the left to fracture into very niche small subsets in order to isolate making it hard for those groups to organize and easier to kill them off. Much like how a cheetah separates a young calf from the herd. So what groups are you talking about for your "huge range of viewpoints"
Totally not silly at all to get hyper specific about political ideology. I'm a liberal right center neo cat Audi rhino born a capitalist but transitioned to a socialist somewhere around 1992 when political synergy was at its peak
Not all left want socialism. The political spectrum is not divided by "want socialism / do not want socialism"
But you're right it's not that deep
No, the left want socialism, be it anarchism, marxist socialism, etc. Capitalism is not the "absence of socialism," it's its own thing.
You're confusing people calling right-wing parties like the DNC "left" in the context of USian politics, but that's because the left is fringe, in parties like PSL.
What do you think makes the divide? Why are you so insistent on calling capitalism "left wing?"
Jesus I'm so sick and tired of people parroting this DNC line. Nobody has mentioned the DNC here.
Capitalism is not a defining feature of being left. There is more to being on the left than just socialist ideals
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libera…
Among the various regional and national movements, the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s strongly highlighted the liberal efforts for equal rights.[197] The Great Society project launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson oversaw the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, the establishment of Head Start and the Job Corps as part of the War on Poverty and the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, an altogether rapid series of events that some historians have dubbed the "Liberal Hour".[198]
Even in America, liberalism is left.
And the meme interpreted as the left absolutely stands
Hey what's the title of this Princeton article
princeton.edu/~starr/articles/…
Anymore of this nonsense I'm just going to post chatgpt references cause I know how you all love that
Incredible, a liberal publication talking about political ideology within the confines of liberalism.
What do you think "left-wing" even means? Why would anyone consider liberalism to be left-wing?
I already did. Leftism is about progressing to the next mode of production, it's historically progressive and revolutionary. Rightism is about retaining the current system or trying to go backwards, ie the "good old days." Socialism is left wing, capitalism is right wing. Liberalism is the ideological superstructure of capitalism, ergo it's right wing.
Secondly, you never actually answered me about what it means to be left wing, or why you think capitalism is left wing. You just copied and pastied the first things you googled without engaging with the points made by others here and myself.
I have a Marxist PoV, as I am a Marxist-Leninist, but that isn't why liberalism is right-wing. Liberalism is right-wing because it is based on private property rights as the centerpoint, and that is the status quo. Maintaining the current status quo is a right-wing, conservative point of view, while the revolutionary, progressive point of view is in socialized ownership.
The definitions you keep linking are from liberal organizations that are benefited by constraining the window of political economic discussion to the confines of capitalist viewpoints. Often, they rely on the Overton Window, which is about what is considered more progressive or reactionary in a given window by the median opinion, ie if you have 100 people in a room, 3 are communists, 67 are bog-standard liberals, and 30 are conservative liberals, then by the Overton Window, you'd have 50 on the left and 50 on the right, with most liberals on the left. However, this erases the actually increasing momentum for socialism, and hides the fact that 97 people in the room are for the current system plus tweaks, and only 3 are for radical change.
The origin of the terms "left" began in France, when capitalism and liberalism were revolutionary, and monarchism was the status quo. We are far beyond the time when liberalism is capable of being seen as revolutionary, however, most of the world is dominated by private property. It is now socialism that is revolutionary, and it has been so for centuries.
I've provided a more nuanced, thorough, and complete analysis than you have, which is why other users are suggesting you listen to me. I can recommend some good works on political economic theory, if you'd like. There's a difference between nuance, and vibes, and you've relied heavily on vibes over nuance.
Neither left nor right, really, it depends on the context.
Again, though, you never answered me.
This is a very typically American point of view, which tends to lump a lot of people together as "liberal" despite this internationally not being the norm at all.
Here's a definition of liberalism:
Liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology that emphasizes individual rights, liberties, and limited government. It promotes ideas like free markets, free trade, and social equality, while often advocating for a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and civil liberties.
Note specifically how it says individual rights. The idea with liberalism is that if everyone is similarly unrestrained by the government, and has the same civil liberties, there is an even playing field in which individuals can personally grow and excel. This neatly links together with the liberal belief in a free market, free trade, etc...
A strict liberal idealogy will also adopt several progressive policies w.r.t. civil liberties, like gay rights (as this causes social equality -> level playing field for competition). But liberalism is still a strictly capitalist idealogy, with a strong emphasis on the free market and free trade.
Generally, this individualistic approach to rights is considered socially progressive and economically right-wing. And we see that this is the case in most countries around the world, e.g. Australia's liberal party or the Dutch VVD. The Dutch VVD is a good example to look at here, they are considered very firmly right-wing, but their party platform most closely matches to that of the DNC. In the US, the two major parties are both righg-wing, one is a moderately progressive right-wing party (with some left-wingers in there, but they aren't very influential w.r.t. party policy because it's such a small minority) and the other is a conservative/authoritarian right-wing party.
Because both parties sit firmly on the right of the spectrum, they've come to distinguish themselves on social policy rather than economic policy. They've remapped the progressive-conservative axis on the left-right axis and called it a day. But in most countries, these axes are very much distinct. Here's the "political compass" for the Netherlands for example:
Note how there are only two fairly fringe parties to the right of the VVD. Also it's interesting to note here that the PVV (the "far-right" party with the bird symbol near the bottom) isn't even all that far right. Their economic policies aren't actually all that focused on free market dynamics, and they do promote certain social policies. But their hardline immigration stance pushes them very firmly in the conservative camp. And although there's certainly a correlation between left-progressive and right-conservative, there are still major differences between the parties along this diagonal axis.
Generally, actual left-wing people (be they progressive or conservative) don't like being lumped in with liberals, because they don't focus on as much on individual freedom but rather on collective freedom and on policies that benefit the collective. Hence their insistence on actually looking at the full political spectrum rather than the simplified/reducted version of it.
You're not wrong that people in the US tend to call liberals "left-wing", but it's a very reductive, American perspective not shared by political scientists or the rest of the world.
lmao what is it with people trying to map abstract political concepts onto geometric and spacial shapes?
The colloquial meaning of "liberal" used by some Americans does not align with how it's used in political theory. That's okay, words have different meaning in different contexts.
"Left" and "right" stem from the French Revolution (1789!) where the people who sat on the left of the National Assembly were progressives that supported the revolution and people who sat on the right were conservatives that wanted to preserve the old system. Liberalism (as defined in political theory, not colloquially) is the dominant global ideology and thus is no longer progressive or radical. It may have been progressive when monarchy was the main form of government, propping up feudalism as the main economic structure. But that's obviously not how the world works 200+ years later
Liberals are rightwing.
There was a brief moment the US democratic party went social democratic, from Roosevelt to Carter and these days there's a small resurgance with Mamdani.
But Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris and Cuomo are all at the very least centre-right wing.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.
We're against liberalism as a whole because it's the ideology that justifies capitalism. We're against social liberals because they're seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.
Canada's two main parties are both right-wing. They support capitalism, and the rule of capitalists over the economy and government. The canadian conservative party agrees with them in that.
Or look at Australia. Their two main parties are Labour vs the liberal party (both are pretty right wing, but in that country the liberals openly position themselves to the right of the other party).
Or take Japan. Their far right party is called the liberal democrats.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libera…
Yea I get it. Liberalism is left of center. There's no denying it. A lot of you just moved far left to the point that you all think the center moved with you. It did not. The political spectrum is not centered on socialism/capitalist. The options are not support socialism or capitalism. That is very lazy way to categorize the political spectrum. There's more to it.
That makes them even less credible. Considering everything else says liberalism is left of center
Here is Princeton
Economics is at the base of the political super structure.
Edit:
I suggest you read this:
archive.org/details/ComManifes…
The whole split between liberals and socialists was based entirely on economics. There is a reason why Karl Marx wrote a whole book on economics.
Communist Manifesto : Karl Marx and Frederik Engels : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Communist Manifesto (originally Manifesto of the Communist Party) is an 1848 political pamphlet by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.This...Internet Archive
Lol no I’m describing the difference between socialists and liberals. Socialists of all stripes were anti capitalist and rooted in working class movements and anti capitlism. Marx had the most robust and scientific understanding of the liberal political order.
Some edits for clarity and another edit:
All socialists understood that they had to burn the liberal order to the ground if they wanted to try gain the type of freedom that they were looking for. Also most anarchists and socialists I have met have never had any problem with what I said about economics being the base of the political super structure what they usually disagree on is strategy and how to organise a society once the liberal order has been abolished.
Neoliberalism is absolutely not the default when we look at the whole world. If we look at the developed world it is the default. That is not the case for everyone.
Your binary only makes sense for some of the world. That’s why I keep pointing to how eurocentric it us.
"Authoritarianism" isn't an ideology, nor does it have a corresponding mode of production. That isn't the argument. The increased despotism in Europe is a consequence of capitalism's decay, it's a very liberal despotism.
Liberalism is not the start of the left. Liberalism is the status quo in capitalist society, it's the ideological component of capitalism. The start of leftism is socialism, the start of rightism is capitalism.
No "authoritarianism" is a end point on the binary that should used rather than capitalism vs anticapitalism it reflects the actual debates going on in non-Western nations
You whole position is eurocentric because it accepts capitalism and liberalism as a default state.
This is wrong.
First of all, ideologies are not recipes, nor choices made by people, but a product of material conditions and reality. There isn't a debate between "authoritarianism" and "liberalism," there's a decaying liberal capitalist system and different classes pushing for their own interests.
Secondly, it isn't a Eurocentric view. The majority of the world is liberal. Countries like China and Cuba that have managed to move into socialism are not the majority. What's left and right isn't determined by the median opinion, but between moving onto the next mode of production or trying to retain the current system (or even move backwards).
There is no "authoritarian vs liberalism" debate, they aren't even antithetical to each other. It isn't a spectrum. Most liberal countries are despotic.
That's a very marxist perspective. There very much is a debate going on all across the planet as to how much freedom from government and religion that people should have. If you bother to educate yourself on the politics of Muslim dominant nations you will see they are having those discussions right now.
To be clear Cowbee, you are talking theory and I am asking you to pull your head out of your books and look at the world around you.
People can talk all they want, but "debate" matters very little in terms of actual systems of political economy. Iran is fairly liberal and nationalist right now, as an example. I despise your insinuation that I simply only read theory and don't pay attention to the world around me, while you draw false binaries and trap yourself into an idealist worldview.
Again, discussion matters far less than what the actual system is, and furthermore leftism in, say, Iran would be socialist. You have a very liberal view of liberalism, humorously enough.
If you despise my assertion that you only read theory you should not make claims like "Iran is fairly liberal now". The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don't exist like they do in capitalust economies.
Try looking into African nations that are liberal in name only and literally any Muslim dominant nation that permits religion to have a direct role in the government if you want to see societies that are debating what degree of liberalism is acceptable.
Liberalism is not opposed to government intervention. Iran is heavily based on private property. That's like saying the US isn't liberal because of the millitary industrial complex.
You're confusing liberalism, the ideology, with vague ideas of personal freedom.
Systems aren't decided by how "serious" the people in charge are. Iran is still a liberal nationalist country.
Further, the PRC is absolutely serious about socialism, the lives of the working class are dramatically improving and the number of billionaires is shrinking. The large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly controlled. Having a stock market is a contradiction, but one that is limited to medium and small firms, which cannot simply be siezed and planned but are allowed to develop to the point that they can be planned better.
You really shouldn't be speaking as though you understand China if you still don't understand Iran, liberalism, and socialism.
Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization.
Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism.
You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all.
- Wikipedia: Three red lines
- EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers
- Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation
Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers - EAC International Consulting
Worried about an overheating real estate mark, the Chinese government has introduced the Three Red Lines as one policy tool to regulate developers.mbeba (EAC International Consulting)
Liberalism isn't just a button that says "privatize." A fully liberal society isn't one that has 100% of production private, it's one where private property is the driving factor of the economy.
Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. Socialism isn't limited to a narrow conception of cooperative production, but large, centralized production, in the Marxist conception. Wealth inequality is under control, and is gradually being worked downwards as the economy becomes more and more centralized. You have a deep chauvanism about you, not only do you presume to know socialism better than the socialists, but you do so without actually engaging with socialist theory, otherwise you wouldn't make such an error.
Further, I absolutely know what "all" means. As others have pointed out, you've been arguing against a position you invented, not my own. You're just a debatelord, you have no desire to come to a greater understanding.
“ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “
No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist.
Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure.
Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all”
Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case.
Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven.
No, you're wrong about socialism. Marxism is precisely against the idea that you can eliminate all private property immediately. It is a gradual process of sublimation, as firms get large enough they become economically compelled to become centrally planned. Investors in the PRC is not a failure. Investors running the CPC and PRC would be, but that's not the case. Your understanding of socialism is incredibly off-base, and as such you're in no position to argue. Leftists aren't "ignoring reality," you're just making up claims to argue with.
And, again, I stated that the development of capitalism necessarily means those developed countries become imperialist. Those in the global south cannot become developed unless they become nationalist, and even then they don't become developed, they stay constrained, and those that are socialist do not have the same mechanisms at play that drive imperialism. The lack of available capital to imperialize for nationalist countries in the global south prevents them from reaching the same levels of development of the global north.
You are utterly incapable of making a coherent argument, you have to invent the positions of not just me, but other socialists, in order to maintain your fragile debatelord worldview.
Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole.
You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China?
The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth.
Socialism is not "decrease wealth inequality." Socialism is not "equalitarianism." Marxist socialism is a scientific outlook on the course of development, and how to best use that knowledge to uplift the great majority of people. Socialism in China has been by far the most successful in this regard, and it is thanks to the methodical approach to socialism founded in Marxist economics, relying on central planning and public ownership of the large and key industries. If it "seems like" they are abandoning socialism to you, it is because you don't actually know what socialists support, and why.
The US is not abandoning liberalism, lmao. The drives of private property are the dominant aspect of the economy and that won't change until the contradictions get too severe to continue.
The working class in China owns the large majority of the media through the state, which itself is proletarian in character. Simple.
"Kiddo" coming from a debatelord trying to "liberal-splain" socialism to me is comedy gold. There's no hypocrisy or uncomfortable facts I need to reconcile, you need to put the phone or keyboard down, take a breather, maybe touch some grass, and then try to understand what others have been telling you.
I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere.
This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it?
If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that?
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations.
Ok 100% of nations
If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case).
It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it.
You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim.
The part that has been pointed out over and over is that you are misreading my stating that all capitalist nations trend towards imperialism as all capitalist nations will become imperialist. The imperialized countries cannot develop to this end, and neither can the nationalist countries, though the impetus to search for more profits that drives imperialism is still to be found in the imperialized and nationalist countries.
What keeps them distinct is the finite quantity of capital, resulting in a division of the world amongst the greater capitalist powers. If all of the imperialist countries in the world fell overnight, the most developed of the nationalist countries would be first in line, and the imperialized countries would race to become the new imperialists, if they didn't already pivot to socialism.
This driving trend is universal to all capitalist nations, whether or not that trend can even be expressed in the first place, however, depends on the availability of capital to exploit. Capitalism necessarily works towards centralization and monopoly, and this drives towards internationalism, but just like a sea turtle with a plastic ring around its neck, it cannot outgrow the ring, it will choke and die, if it cannot expand and imperialize.
If you still don't understand the point after this, then you're deliberately ignorant, only in it for the masochistic desire to embarass yourself in online debate for an audience of a whopping 4ish people.
If you despise my assertion
You put a lot of superficial 'I'm smart' affectation into your posts for a vapid racist
The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don’t exist like they do in capitalust economies.
Many of us are socialists, and we don’t take issue with a state constraining the capitalist class’ economic freedom. If you live in a neoliberal hellscape like most of us, you ought to want it more constrained, too.
"We can't take that chance."
"You always say that! I want to take a chance!"
This is still the best Simpsons episode ever.
Which episode is this? Cause it's really bugging me that I can't place it. I want to say it's the Globex / Scorpio episode, but I can't say for sure.
And I will politely disagree about it being the best episode. If it is the Scorpio one, it's still very, very, good. But S01 E05 Bart the General will always be my favorite.
You Only Move Twice S08E02
For me it's the best. I love Hank Scorpio and the joke density in that episode is insane. It's one great joke after another.
"Have you ever seen a man say goodbye to a shoe?"
"Hehe, yes once."
It's a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren't imperialist because there's nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
Reread my comment:
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
The global south is imperialized. The most they can do is become nationalist and kick out imperialists, they can't really become imperialist themselves. They would if they could. Assuming, of course, they don't become socialist in the process of kicking out the imperialists.
So it would be the case if it were the case but it is not the case and you are still somehow correct?
That makes no sense. Thus it isn't happening in most nations and your claim is fraudulent.
Yes you claimed that the global south which you are claiming is liberal and is also not engaging in imperialism so by your own logic most nations that are liberal are not engaging in these actions.
Your whole argument rests on that essentially flawed notion.
You claim that this is happening most of the time. I point out that the nom-imperialist nations, which make up the majority if the liberal nations, are not doing this so from a sheer numerical perspective your claim is flawed as most are not doing this.
Ypu can try to shift the goalposts but if the non-imperialistic liberal nations are the larger group then your claim cannot be true because factually speaking it us not happening in most liberal nations.
Just because this point still seems to not be getting through:
If I say you need enough heat, fuel, and oxygen to start a fire, and you say if you don’t have heat you don’t have fire, I’m still correct. I have never once said that the global south is imperialist, I said the opposite.
No goalposts shifted. This has been my point from the very beginning.
im not saying you have. Im arguing the trend you are claiming that happens most of the time is not happening.
Im making a numbers argument and you are trying to make a theory based argument.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding the point. If there's capital left to be imperialized and a country develops to the monopoly stage, it will imperialize the capital. Countries in the global south cannot develop to such a stage unless the pivot to a nationalist or socialist position, and in the former case the presense of imperialist countries means the capital to be imperialized is dried up except through war, which opens up new markets.
This is a law of capitalist development. If a country develops to the monopoly stage and there's capital to be imperialized, it will imperialize it. There has never been a case where this isn't true. The fact that countries in the global south are underdeveloped and over exploited only further proves this point.
You presented a numbers based claim that this happens most of the time. You then made an exception that alters the entire definition of your claim from “most” to “some” which invalidates your claim.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the flaw in your argument because you haven’t looked at your initial claim.
No, I submitted a claim based on what happens as capitalism develops, with the requirement that there be capital left to imperialize. You invented a nonsensical viewpoint and substituted it for my own as a gotcha, and rather than accepting that you misread.
You are fundamentally inventing a flaw in my argument because you didn't understand my initual claim, hence why others have bolded my original claim in response to you in order to get you to see where you went wrong.
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited
Highlighting notions based on a flawed premise do not make those claims more valid.
This is a numbers argument. Unless you are going to claim there are more liberal nations engaging in imperialism than are victims of it your claim that it happens most of the time cannot be true.
No it's not. He sets the scope as "all capitalist nations that have not been imperialised", which is logical. How can an imperialised country be imperialist towards another?
You are trying to include them in your argument.
Go look at that first sentence you keep quoting. It says ALL without any exceptions.
The truth is the “theory” they profess is unproven and you accept it all as fact and I do not based on the lack of evidence to support the claim.
The claim was
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
The trend is observable on the imperialized nations as well as the imperialist ones.
Imperialism is not a one way street, the effects of imperalialism are observable (lower capitalistic development, higher profit extraction, etc).
The fact that the countries with more developed capital are the ones doing imperialism and the countries with less developed capital are the ones imperialized (and oberving how this stays true historicllly) is proof of the trend.
All means 100%. The fact that an exception is made where it does not happens means it is not “all”.
Of course all of this presumes the rest is true and that has never been adequately demonstrated to be the case. Marxist assertions are called “theory” by leftists but they do not have that level of credibility or validity IRL. It is always worth remembering “theory” is really from from the case
Marxist science is science, proven by observation and experiments
Liberal worldview is a fake invented by the owning class to fool their slaves
Observe the resurgence of right-wing nationalism in the West.
It's not accidental that this phenomenon is occurring specifically within the context of algorithmic social media exclusively controlled by multinational corporations. It is collusion between these companies and certain political entities to consolidate political and economic power within the fortresses of wealthy Western countries, as a defensive posture to the projected collapse of habitability and globalized trade across the world. By exploiting peoples fears and internalized biases, these architects are redefining the West to meet their economic agenda.
Simply put, the political moment the West is living through is a manufactured cultural shift intended to psychologically prime the populace of said regions for the steady collapse of international law and human rights in the face of unprecedented ecological disaster and the resulting mass migration of displaced people.
Instead of reckoning with their fundamental role in creating this dire circumstance and pursuing a policy of redistribution of wealth and resources to minimize the impacts globally, it's becoming increasingly apparent that the wealthy oligarchs of the world are instead doing away with liberal values and leaning into a nostalgic ideology of social Darwinism and the belief that wealth is a product of intrinsic superiority.
Theres a beautiful video circulating of Seun Kuti speaking to a crowd and telling them that if Europe (and by extension, the West) can free itself from the destructive ideologies of its past, it will inherently lead to resolution of the conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and the Congo. It iterates the point I am presenting here in a beautifully succinct way and I recommend watching it.
Butchering the definition, imperialism is the monopolist stage of capitalism, specifically the monopoly of finance capital. This can be expanded but there is no point in doing so here.
The monopoly on finance capital is already formed by a cartel of mostly american+european financial institutions and so on. These countries are what we call imperialist, we do not call Russia imperialist simply because they do not have this monopoly and are actively fighting against it, their future ambitions are a story for another day.
Let's say that somehow the cartel completely disappeared and banks were to start from zero again, a bunch of local banks would emerge all around the world. As time went on, the most efficient banks would inevitably best its competitors, consolidate their position and gain increasingly more market share, until it becomes a local monopoly, then they go global and the process repeats until a global monopoly is formed, this is what happens on every single industry.
This is an inevitable outcome of capitalism simply due the nature of capital growing, capital stagnates when it faces competition so capitalists inevitably organize into cartels to consolidate a monopoly. The only way to do some sort of "checked capitalism" is to completely strip capitalists off political power through a violent revolution, like China did.
When Cowbee says that capitalism decays and leads into imperialism this is what i think he means, and he is right.
My girlfriend thinks capitalism is fine and doesn’t care about billionaires existing.
She’s never had a minimum wage job or worked in the service industry 🙄
Just curious, what is the alternative you propose? We have seen communism, that doesn't work either.
In my country we also have capatalism but we still have workers rights and all of that. It is just in America that employers managed to get everything their way. Other countries have free markets without abusing their workers.
Socialized Democracy.
Basically democracy with robust safety nets, strong regulation on business, strong labor unions, and socialized healthcare and higher education OPTIONS.
Capitalism is good for competition and innovation so we can’t really ditch it completely, but we live in society, not the jungle, so we should have safety nets and socialized options for poor people to gain independence and social mobility.
Pro-tip: Channel your frustration into positivity for better reception.
Nothing you said was unreasonable per se. It was just how you said it that’s getting you flak.
You may not give a shit, but if you do… I’m just sayin’
Social Democracy is just capitalism with welfare, and as such either funds itself via imperialism like the Nordic Countries, or is ultimately going to see capital use its political power to erase the gains of workers. Markets can play a useful role in spurring development of small and medium firms, but the larger firms and key industries should be publicly owned and planned, as market mechanics begin to lose all benefit towards higher development.
Really, it sounds like you just want Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics—Introductory Study Guide
China has transformed in 70 years from a poor, underdeveloped country mired by feudalism and imperialism into a sovereign socialist society and the world’s second-largest economy.Qiao Collective
The problem with outright socialism is it always gets toppled, because your success is a threat to the entire world order, and foreign governments can make offensive decisions at a faster rate than you can make defensive ones, since your big decisions have to filter through more eyes and hands in the name of fairness.
When we’re talking about entire countries, we have to be more pragmatic than idealistic, or our plans just don’t work sadly.
China is still here, and still socialist, and it isn't leaving. This is because of Democratic Centralism, a fast and cohesive way to adapt to changing conditions while retaining democratic input. For less urgent decisions, the PRC has slower, more comprehensive, bottom-up systems, while it focuses more on a top-down approach for system-wide changes and direction. It's kinda like "top down, from the bottom up."
I agree with pragmatism over idealism, that's why I'm a communist and push for socialism. Socialism is immensely practical.
Democratic centralism - ProleWiki
Democratic centralism is a practice in which political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the political party. Although mainly...ProleWiki
This is wrong on several accounts.
- "Communism" the economic system has not been realized. Communist parties have led socialist countries, but communism as a mode of production is a product of the future.
- Socialism works, the largest economy on the planet is the PRC, which is seeing rapid and comprehensive improvements in the living standards of its people. Even the USSR, now no longer here, achieved impressive economic growth, provided free healthcare and education, and much more.
- Capitalism, by definition, requires that the capitalists be in charge and the workers exploited. It isn't just the US.
China Claps Back: No US Trade Deals That Sacrifice Its Interests
China Claps Back: No US Trade Deals That Sacrifice Its Interests
China will retaliate if other countries strike trade deals with the US that undermine its interests for so-called tariff cuts, the country’s Ministry of Commerce said.Sputnik International
like this
Maeve likes this.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Ukraine's Withdrawal From Anti-Personnel Landmine Treaty Could Haunt Generations
Ukraine's Withdrawal From Anti-Personnel Landmine Treaty Could Haunt Generations
Volodymyr Zelensky has signed a decree formally withdrawing Ukraine from the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines. The move coincided with the exit from the treaty by countries along NATO's eastern flank, including Poland and the Baltics.Sputnik International
like this
Maeve likes this.
Honestly most of those actions are actually ineffectual horseshit anyway. Trash management "industry" is a horror show and if you really think any of this makes an impact you're misinformed. Or rather, the impact is negligible.
Less recycling, more killing
This was a good action, giving a lot of joy to the owner.
gatechecked.com/climate-activi…
Climate Activists Spray-Paint Private Jet
German protestors belonging to the "Last Generation" climate change group spray-painted a private jet at Sylt Airport over government inaction regarding climate change policies.Bradley Wint (Gate Checked)
9950x3d cache optimizations on Linux?
I'm considering getting a 9950x3D on either Monday or Tuesday at a Micro Center as a upgrade to my current setup. My main question is, how is the experience with the 9950x3D on Linux with strange architecture with half of the cores having extra L3 cache and the other half with a normal amount of L3 cache.
I have been busy working and suddenly there's been a promotion for the 9950x3D that I want to take advantage of since my motherboard on my current system has been deteriorating as of late. Asrock x570 Extreme4 with a 3700x. USB has been very flaky and I've been dual boating and the other SSD slot is on the chipset. Which makes my windows boot incredibly slow.
I plan to stay on Arch Linux or hop over to CachyOS but want to know what are your thoughts on this as well?
I primarily game but occasionally do some video/audio encoding, video editing and want to build ffmpeg-full from the aur but takes too long on my 3700X.
I've only been able to read/watch three mediums level1tech, and two Phoronix articles, but haven't mental capacity to register and remember everything.
I watched the Ryzen 9950x3D? On Linux video by Level1tech. And one of the things he mentions is gamemode. Is it recommended.
As for the Phoronix articles one is the review of the 9950x3D and the other is the cache optimization driver.
By default for the Ryzen 9 9950X3D it was using the "frequency" preference as default. But if writing "cache" to /sys/bus/platform/drivers/amd_x3d_vcache/AMDI0101:00/amd_x3d_mode it will prefer using the CCD with the larger cache. This cache vs. frequency bias can all be easily manipulated at run-time for those interested.
Is there some sort of automation for this? Or, do I have to do it manually for each program? I've never messed with kernel parameters other than for my Nvidia GPU to get Wayland to work.
I'm sorry that this question feels very unorganized. I just don't have time to write a proper one. I'll be able to reply on my next break.
Thank you for your help.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, MSI X870E-P Pro WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 Kit, Computer Build Bundle - Micro Center
Get it now! Find over 30,000 products at your local Micro Center, including the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, MSI X870E-P Pro WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 Kit, Computer Build BundleMicro Center
L3 cache is a hardware level function so unless the application like memtest86+ tells the cpu not to cache, everything is cached.
There are games that is so memory intensive when it comes to IO/s , that the cache plays a smaller role, like “X4: Foundations“.
/sys/bus/platform/drivers/amd_x3d_vcache/AMDI0101 is a global function. You can use ‘taskset’ to set cpu affinity at launch of application.
If it helps, I wrote a KDE widget to switch between the modes: github.com/Steve-Tech/KDE-AMD-…
My understanding is amd_x3d_mode basically prioritises what cores the scheduler will assign tasks to.
I usually keep it on cache since I do a lot of code compilation, but I will usually switch it to frequency for gaming and stuff.
GitHub - Steve-Tech/KDE-AMD-X3D-Selector
Contribute to Steve-Tech/KDE-AMD-X3D-Selector development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
keep it on cache since I do a lot of code compilation, but I will usually switch it to frequency for gaming and stuff.
Isn't gaming the most cache-heavy CPU workload there is? The X3D CPUs have consistently topped gaming benchmarks, even outperforming much more modern CPUs that lack 3D cache.
I'd sooner do it the other way around: frequency for compiling, rendering, transcoding, etc. Cache for gaming!
Advice on migrating from Ubuntu server to another server OS
Hi all. I'm currently running a home server using Ubuntu OS, but I'd like to try and explore other options for operating systems to better my skills with linux/unix.
Currently I'm considering switching to Fedora server (though feedback is welcome) because I've been running it as my daily OS for a few months now and I quite like it. I'm also looking at Debian server because that's what my old professor used and he did nothing but speak its praises.
Only issue is I'm concerned about data loss from moving the installation. Currently, the server is setup to run several Docker images running my programs. While moving over the images shouldn't be difficult whatsoever, I'm afraid my storage setup might not be so easy. Currently, it's two 4TB hard drives running in a logical volume. I'd love to simply be able to move over all the files to a backup drive, but I don't have anywhere I can store >5TB of files as a backup.
I googled around, but I couldn't find too many guides on migrating logical volumes. The one or two I did find were most definitely written for someone with far more linux knowledge than I have as a relative noob, so any advice would be extremely welcome!
Fedora is great if you want a faster rolling release and you're already familiar with it.
Debian is great if you want a slower release schedule but stable LTS.
Two different use-cases, but both great options.
Okay, more details will be required, but here's what I'm thinking will work.
One of the benefits of an LVM is its pretty easy to resize it.
The outline of what you can do is this (and we can refine the steps with more details)
Right now you've got your 8TB physical volume, and within that, you should have your volume group, and within that volume group, you should have one or more logical volums that are mounted for your system. The idea is to resize the existing logical volume by shrinking it, creating addition space within the volume group that can be used to create a new logical volume. Then, that new logical volume can be used to install Fedora.
Depending on how much free space you have on the entire physical volume, you could potentially dual boot Fedora and Ubuntu. Roughly speaking, the steps would look like this:
WARNING: These steps are not exhaustive because I don't know the full details of your system. This is not meant to be a guide for you to immediately implement and follow, but to help get you down the right path DO NOT FOLLOW THESE STEPS WITHOUT FIRST FULLY UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS WILL APPLY TO YOUR UNIQUE SYSTEM SETUP.
- Download a Linux ISO of your choice. Ubuntu, Fedora, it doesn't really matter. This one is going to be used to live boot on your server so you can make adjustments to your lvm without having the lvm mounted.
- Boot into the live usb
- Once you get to the desktop environment of the live usb dismiss any installation prompts, etc and open a terminal
- Install the logical volume tools with
sudo whatever-the-package-manager-install-command-is lvm2 - If your volume group is encrypted (typically with LUKS), you'll need to decrypt it to make sizing changes to the lvm(s) in the volume group. You can decrypt it with:
cryptsetup open /dev/your-disk-here name-of-your-volume-group- For example, on my system if I were doing this it would be
cryptsetup open /dev/nvme0n1p2 server(I very creatively named my server volume groupserver)
- Once you can access your volume group, you can use the
dfcommand to see how much space is free in your volume group. The full command you'll want to run is:sudo df -h- This command will list all mounted disks along with filesystem usage data. With this you should be able to determine how much free space you have in your volume group.
- Once you've determined how much free space you have, you can decide how big you want to make your new logical volume. For example, if your current usage is 6TB out of the 8TB total, you could resize the current logical volume down to 7TB, and then create a new logical volume that's 1TB in size for the Fedora install
- You will do the resize using the
lvm2tools installed. The command to shrink the logical volume looks like this:sudo lvreduce --resizefs --size -1TB /dev/your-volume-group/the-lvm-name
- Once you've shrunk the lvm, You can create your new lvm
IMPORTANT NOTES:
- If at all possible, you should really back up the data. If you don't have any kind of backups in place, you're risking losing all of your data, not just in doing this operation, but in general.
- If you want to dual boot, things are more complicated because of where your
/bootexists
Thanks a ton for the very detailed reply!
First off, do you know a good command I could run to give you a better idea of my system's LV setup?
Secondly, I was hoping to fully migrate the data on my ubuntu server to a fedora or debian server rather than leaving it on the ubuntu server
Happy to help!
lsblk will give exactly the info needed. Copy the output of lsblk and paste it into a reply and that will be perfect. Or a screenshot. Whatever's easier for you
Sorry this took a while, I got distracted. Trying to also learn Dart cause why not.
Here's the output of lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINTS
sda 8:0 0 3.6T 0 disk
├─sda1 8:1 0 1G 0 part /boot/efi
├─sda2 8:2 0 2G 0 part /boot
└─sda3 8:3 0 3.6T 0 part
└─ubuntu--vg-ubuntu--lv 252:0 0 7.3T 0 lvm /
sdb 8:16 0 3.6T 0 disk
└─ubuntu--vg-ubuntu--lv 252:0 0 7.3T 0 lvm /
Perfect. So you've got separate /boot and /boot/efi partitions, which means dual booting will be much easier if you want to do that.
The ubuntu--vg-ubuntu-lv is the logical volume you'll want to resize. So now we need to see how much space is available on the volume. To get that, run the command sudo df -h and paste that output into a comment.
From there we can figure out how much space you have and how you might want to resize the volume to prep for a new install.
What is challenging about this is that your data is under your root (/) mount, which is also the ubuntu os. If in the end you want to entirely remove ubuntu, it'll be a little trickier than if your data was in a separate logical volume that you mounted into your root system during boot.
For example many people have a separate logical volume for /home, which makes it easier to switch distros while preserving your home folder with all of your user data, config files, etc...
But that's getting a little ahead of ourselves. Start with sudo df -h for the filesystem usage info and we can go from there.
sudo df -hFilesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
tmpfs 3.2G 5.9M 3.2G 1% /run
efivarfs 128K 17K 107K 14% /sys/firmware/efi/efivars
/dev/mapper/ubuntu--vg-ubuntu--lv 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /
tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 5.0M 0 5.0M 0% /run/lock
/dev/sda2 2.0G 193M 1.6G 11% /boot
/dev/sda1 1.1G 6.2M 1.1G 1% /boot/efi
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/bcfc6cdd2b2dade1c62a74e2471c7854b9c196a3c0f078f797d70113964ede8d/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/a35b73132ddc1e269aa9ebe575d0e5e2e73e6f08cdb825b0887f91e0a4121cef/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/e520dbd210290edb01c7bf8d37cbdfc8e03b7a163dbd456a17868a71c4550397/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/89b5c5806c2482d9318cbf770f836cedb06286a2dd49e7c227fea02e198df2af/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/fa91a69c4a453e2fa734ebe4c83dd8ee77d70749f16f2d4c63f90aaeb4c50d31/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/4dd7bc11c887471609493f01328394b25f7dd2bb535f46f49c42549ad687d862/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/9ee1766864b68a61bc3ba27aa98404ed46b76f6e9e6f0731ed445eb4d4112153/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/13bfb2554321f24c9648cfbda84ade6988df77543116688e6f08481fcc5bb0fa/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/8c271d4bc303852dedc7e6eea9a580f0ffd0dea9a066c9f0b7e5b926b2c5c0be/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/2fa7a2ecc5219b708f88eb3ed080657169306e35be14986500282cb9c455bbc1/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/1c206df8e1e12b7ca2acfec4b9e6617fd155c432f2b22bf34eb201f32f1fe3d6/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/36b806dc4db7596718766e344cff0db305ec4509e6fbdc673b394fa5cb62d9b3/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/40f4535813fe79417d0f040fdd53a5058bb29469026fc7a8eabb2b92db16eadf/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/4c301571ba732358aeffd767b5850c0db56efaf0d561016e8fc077d87187a26a/merged
overlay 7.2T 3.8T 3.2T 55% /var/lib/docker/overlay2/73f9cd053d43eaf8707c481e68bb1beec843b7153a58dc9e99f467a637b33e9c/merged
tmpfs 3.2G 12K 3.2G 1% /run/user/1000
I'm currently running a home server using Ubuntu OS, but I'd like to try and explore other options for operating systems to better my skills with linux/unix.
What are you hoping to explore? Distrohopping servers is pretty much pointless, especially if you're using docker.
Like you're going to use dnf to install docker instead of apt, maybe configure selinux instead of apparmor, and that's it. Definitely not worth it IMO.
If you want to use it as a server, Fedora is annoying because the support lifetimes are so short.
If you want the Fedora / Red Hat experience, consider Alma Linux. Skills wise, it is like using Res Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) which is an in-demand skill set.
For a server os, do things like consider stability and ease of upgrading between major versions.
Debian does both of those things extremely well.
If you're playing around with changing distros and your data is valuable, I'd try and find somewhere to back it up to, myself.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/32467220
By Elis Gjevori
Published date: 28 June 2025 21:08 BST"Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grave breaches of international law.
"This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces," said L. Compton, Channel 4's Head of News and Current Affairs. "It exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism," she added.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
By Elis Gjevori
Published date: 28 June 2025 21:08 BST"Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grave breaches of international law.
"This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces," said L. Compton, Channel 4's Head of News and Current Affairs. "It exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism," she added.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grav…Elis Gjevori (Middle East Eye)
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/32467220
By Elis Gjevori
Published date: 28 June 2025 21:08 BST"Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grave breaches of international law.
"This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces," said L. Compton, Channel 4's Head of News and Current Affairs. "It exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism," she added.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
By Elis Gjevori
Published date: 28 June 2025 21:08 BST"Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grave breaches of international law.
"This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces," said L. Compton, Channel 4's Head of News and Current Affairs. "It exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism," she added.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grav…Elis Gjevori (Middle East Eye)
like this
Maeve likes this.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/32467220
By Elis Gjevori
Published date: 28 June 2025 21:08 BST"Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grave breaches of international law.
"This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces," said L. Compton, Channel 4's Head of News and Current Affairs. "It exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism," she added.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
By Elis Gjevori
Published date: 28 June 2025 21:08 BST"Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grave breaches of international law.
"This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces," said L. Compton, Channel 4's Head of News and Current Affairs. "It exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism," she added.
Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC
Channel 4 will broadcast Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, a documentary laying out damning allegations that Israeli forces systematically targeted Gaza's hospitals and medical staff throughout their military campaign—allegations which would amount to grav…Elis Gjevori (Middle East Eye)
Recommendations for an Offline Music Player That Supports Synced Lyrics
Hi folks,
Recently, I started to listen to music locally instead of using streaming services because I have had enough of all the annoying parts of it. I gathered a lot of Opus and FLAC files that have lyrics embedded in them. I am searching for some music players that can display them. The one I am using right now is Elisa. It is awesome, but I would still like to know if there are more alternatives, just in case. Thanks!
GitHub - sentriz/gonic: music streaming server / free-software subsonic server API implementation
music streaming server / free-software subsonic server API implementation - sentriz/gonicGitHub
Yep, but only if you familiar, otherwise it can range from 1day to a week depending how complex our setup is (OCID,Fail2ban,reverse proxy, self-signed miniCA...).
But once your setup is all ready and you get all the bell and whistle it's just a matter of 5mins (and very fun too if you have time to spend !)
It's not, really. All of those programs are Go, and single executables. There's no "install" for either gonic or ostui (IIRC, also Navidrome): you download or compile the executable and run it, and you're off and running.
Someone mentioned Docker; in this case it's unnecessary unless you're doing it for security. They're just each a single binary. You'll have to either create a config for gonic or Navidrome, or run them with commands telling them where your music lives, but that's it. Running on the same machine, you don't even have to open the ports on your firewall. However, if you do, Tempo for Android lets you stream the music to your phone from gonic or Navidrome, too.
These are very, very simple programs to run. ostui is a TUI, so if you prefer GUIs you'll want a different client, but both of the servers are easy to run and nothing to install - just run them as you, not even root.
Yup! It's very much like mpd, except streaming without an additional component.
They use the SoundCloud API. You only need either gonic or Navidrome, plus a client (like ostui).
rmpc ;
Info: mierak.github.io/rmpc/next/con…
Edit: It seems you need a separate file with the song lyrics. It's not exactly what you're looking for, but I hope it's still helpful to someone.
Edit 2: DeadBeef with deadbeef-lyricbar does something similar
GitHub - loskutov/deadbeef-lyricbar: A simple plugin for DeaDBeeF audio player that fetches and shows the song’s lyrics
A simple plugin for DeaDBeeF audio player that fetches and shows the song’s lyrics - loskutov/deadbeef-lyricbarGitHub
GitHub - swingmx/swingmusic: Swing Music is a beautiful, self-hosted music player for your local audio files. Like a cooler Spotify ... but bring your own music.
Swing Music is a beautiful, self-hosted music player for your local audio files. Like a cooler Spotify ... but bring your own music. - swingmx/swingmusicGitHub
like this
HeerlijkeDrop likes this.
i use termusic. It has a lyric section, but I never used it
edit: added link
GitHub - tramhao/termusic: Music Player TUI written in Rust
Music Player TUI written in Rust. Contribute to tramhao/termusic development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
If you need it for Android, I tried quite a few. I had the same requisites, offline, lyrics for flac files, I ended up using Metro:
f-droid.org/packages/io.github…
Very minimalist and do the job very well. I use the field"Composer" to sort my lists.
Metro - A music player for Android | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository
Best material design music player for Androidf-droid.org
Lotus | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository
Music player designed with Material Youf-droid.org
It is not a dumb question at all. I asked my self the same question a few months ago. You are correct. It is essentially just metadata. You can embed them with something like kid3 directly into the music file it self. So for example I have a .lrc file(the sync lyrics file). It will look something like this:
[00:16.60]Through your terribly fragile heart.
[00:24.70]Even the secret of the red fruit is, "I'll give it all to you.
[00:32.90]Even though I'm still hurting your leaky heart
[00:40.50]I still see your dream
[00:44.00]A person whose beauty that can’t be achieved whose beauty can’t be achieved…
[00:51.80]I want you to love me, I want you to love me
...
U can just copy the text in the .lrc file and then write it into the music file with a lyrics tag with something like kid3. If u open the music file with a music player that supports it, u will get synced lyrics. The process is quite tedious to do manually, so I made an app to download audio from YouTube videos and embed the subtitles as lyrics to do it for me (yes, this is a shameless plug). If you are interested, you can check it out. Azul box
GitHub - musdx/azul-box: This is a utility box for yt-dlp and ffmpeg with musicbrainz Metadata.
This is a utility box for yt-dlp and ffmpeg with musicbrainz Metadata. - musdx/azul-boxGitHub
Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/32465391
Sanya Mansoor
June 27 2025, 10:05 a.m"For months, environmental researcher Yaakov Garb has been using satellite data to analyze the design, location, and expansion of these facilities. Garb, a professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, found in an analysis published earlier this month on Harvard Dataverse that most of Gaza’s population cannot access these centers in a safe and practical way. Doing so requires crossing the dangerous Netzarim Corridor, entering a buffer zone from which Israel has banned them from entering, or a long walk across a barren rubble field, while carrying a heavy box of food."
Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month
Sanya Mansoor
June 27 2025, 10:05 a.m"For months, environmental researcher Yaakov Garb has been using satellite data to analyze the design, location, and expansion of these facilities. Garb, a professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, found in an analysis published earlier this month on Harvard Dataverse that most of Gaza’s population cannot access these centers in a safe and practical way. Doing so requires crossing the dangerous Netzarim Corridor, entering a buffer zone from which Israel has banned them from entering, or a long walk across a barren rubble field, while carrying a heavy box of food."
Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month
The U.S.-backed system for food aid in Gaza is a “tactical intervention in humanitarian wrapping,” per an Israeli professor.Sanya Mansoor (The Intercept)
like this
Maeve likes this.
Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/32465391
Sanya Mansoor
June 27 2025, 10:05 a.m"For months, environmental researcher Yaakov Garb has been using satellite data to analyze the design, location, and expansion of these facilities. Garb, a professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, found in an analysis published earlier this month on Harvard Dataverse that most of Gaza’s population cannot access these centers in a safe and practical way. Doing so requires crossing the dangerous Netzarim Corridor, entering a buffer zone from which Israel has banned them from entering, or a long walk across a barren rubble field, while carrying a heavy box of food."
Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month
Sanya Mansoor
June 27 2025, 10:05 a.m"For months, environmental researcher Yaakov Garb has been using satellite data to analyze the design, location, and expansion of these facilities. Garb, a professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, found in an analysis published earlier this month on Harvard Dataverse that most of Gaza’s population cannot access these centers in a safe and practical way. Doing so requires crossing the dangerous Netzarim Corridor, entering a buffer zone from which Israel has banned them from entering, or a long walk across a barren rubble field, while carrying a heavy box of food."
Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month
The U.S.-backed system for food aid in Gaza is a “tactical intervention in humanitarian wrapping,” per an Israeli professor.Sanya Mansoor (The Intercept)
Has anyone had success putting ProtonVPN or any other VPN aside from MullvadVPN on Bazzite?
like this
sunzu2 likes this.
I've installed it through secureblue's ujust script. I think this has been the smoothest experience I've had with it on Fedora Atomic.
Previously, I relied on the wireguard profiles I downloaded from ProtonVPN and which I loaded through NetworkManager. While it definitely worked, it was a hassle to redo it every now and then. Furthermore, switching on the go to something else I hadn't loaded already was never an experience I enjoyed doing.
Though, for completeness' sake, ProtonVPN^[Note that, IIRC, IVPN and Mullvad don't fare better in this regard.] hasn't fixed its IP leakage on Linux. And, to my knowledge, the workaround is only available with access to the wireguard profiles. And thus, the cumbersome method actually offers a very tangible merit over the comfortable one.
Finally, while I don't endorse the use of NordVPN, it's the only other VPN that's installable as a sysext. Note that systemd system extensions are still experimental, though. Even if they've (read: N=1) been reliable to use for me.
secureblue: Hardened Fedora Atomic and Fedora CoreOS images
Hardened operating system images based on Fedora Atomic Desktop and Fedora CoreOSsecureblue
like this
sunzu2 likes this.
That guy is a piece of garbage for sure, but as a man losing most of his hair I hope not to be lumped in with trash like that.
PS: Who is the other guy? Sorry for not knowing.
Love... is a burnin' thing...
And it makes... a fiery ring.
Bound... by wild desire...
I fell into a ring of fire.
...
The taste... of love is sweet...
When hearts... like ours meet.
I fell for you like a child...
Ooooh, but the fire went wild.
...
biography.com/musicians/johnny…
Johnny Cash and June Carter:
Two fucked up, rough and tumble assholes who... married and remained together, totally devoted to and thankful for each other for 35 years, died within 4 months of each other.
Burnin' Ring of Fire is one of the most famous songs of all time... June wrote it, Johnny sang the most famous version.
youtube.com/watch?v=1WaV2x8GXj…
...
Andrew Tate:
Self described drug dealer, rapist, sex trafficker, failed MMA fighter... openly states he is disgusted by nearly all women, and only fucks them because it makes other men envious of him, also he claims to only fuck 18 and 19 yos ... apparently he married someone a few months ago.
I'm sure that'll work out well.
Oh right, uh, no notable discography, nor chin.
(why do you think he has the beard)
Johnny Cash Described His Love for June Carter as 'Unconditional'. Inside Their Love Story
Immediately drawn to each other, the country singers navigated rocky roads before and throughout their marriage.Biography
Huh, I may have it wrong... but that would mean wikipedia has it wrong.
Says June Carter and Merle Kilgore wrote the original version, sung originally by June's sister Anita.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_…
Maybe Johnny edited it a bit?
I... struggle to say this pun but uh:
This is some real Folk-Lore.
Wait wait wait wait........you mean somewhere, out there in the world is MMA footage of andrew tate getting his ass handed to him?
Why is this not viral???
Wait you haven't seen this?
Hold on...
youtube.com/watch?v=yPW0VaTYhN…
Watch those knees just go fucking limp and askew... real KOs lol.
Its likely not viral because this is all bootleg, PPV footage, you'd get copyright takedown'd / sued into oblivion by all the various fight organizations.
I think most of his record is in relatively minor leagues, only a few fights in relatively bigger deal organizations... not sure.
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.youtube.com
Idk about MMA, but afaik his kickboxing record was pretty good, but essentially he was an average/slightly above average pro who had a massively padded record - he mainly fought people who were ranked far lower than him, won some low to mid level titles and didn't take actual fair matchups or compete in tournaments that you'd expect actual highly ranked pros would compete in.
So, he was a perfectly adequate kickboxer and could beat a lot of pro kickboxers in lower divisions but nowhere near "best in the world" / "olympic level" or whatever else he claims
Haha yeah the wording is rather ... malleable, in that way.
Much like your-
You get it lol.
log into multiple google account in thunderbird
log into multiple google account in thunderbird
What information I might leak to google server if I issue log into multiple google account in thunderbird? ip of course but what else might be collected? It would be really great if someone could clarify whether the information below will be send to google when using their email service even through Thunderbird
- device name
- device model
- ...
My main concern is that google will be able to know that I have logged into the same device with different accounts.
In addition, I plan to use VPN when using one google account but not the others. This can be achieved through profiling, but is there an option that I can simply manage all the accounts in one app but without my ip address being collected by several specific email service provider corresponding to several specific email?
thanks a lot!
The big issue is its very easy to leak information that ties all three of your accounts together effectively doxxing yourself to google.
For example one way is to hash your phones non hardware identifiers and then correlate any accounts that have this same hash.
GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to frequently asked questions about GrapheneOS.GrapheneOS
thanks a lot
though I'm having trouble understanding what exact information will thunderbird leak to email service provider.
Does this mean thunderbird will send (Examples of the global OS configuration available to apps are time zone, network country code and other similar global settings.) to any email service provider that is logged in on thunderbird?
GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to frequently asked questions about GrapheneOS.GrapheneOS
Israel Suffered Extensive Damage [ex-CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson]
Despite the arduous efforts of Israeli censors to hide the devastation Iran inflicted on Israel with its barrage of ballistic missiles during the 12-Day War, information is emerging that destroys the myth that Israel had an impregnable air defense. The map at the head of this article reveals the sites targeted by Iran. Based on the videos of strikes in Haifa and Tel Aviv, I think this map accurately portrays the massive scale of the Iranian attack. For the first time in its history, Israel took a major beating.
Actually being progressive to get women's attention and tell them about how lucky they are that he's not like these other closed minded men can certainly be used to control a woman. I highly recommend reading "Why does he do that? Inside the mind of angry and controlling men" by Lundy Bancroft.
I had to admit that I had been controlling of my wife for years and didn't even realize I was doing it. Sometimes I try to cling to my old ideas and dismiss this stuff but I really can't.
"Straight pride" isn't a thing. It's purely a reactionary response to gay pride.
The point of gay pride is for gay people to show that they're not afraid to be who they are in the face of systematic discrimination. It is specifically countering the culture of gay shame that had been the norm in the past. Straight people are already the overwhelming majority and have never been oppressed for their sexual orientation. There's was never any shame associated with it so it makes no sense to proclaim that you're "proud" to be straight.
It's like someone who finished a marathon expressing their pride for their accomplishment, and some loser who has to make everything about themselves says "well I sat on my ass all day and I deserve to be proud of that too!"
The issue is not that it's not okay to be proud of being straight, you're welcome to feel pride all you want. The issue is when you but into someone else's moment and make it about yourself.
Western media enabling Gaza genocide and rewriting history, say experts
At a panel hosted by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) in London on Saturday, experts accused mainstream Western media of contributing to the denial and distortion of atrocities unfolding in Gaza.
Omar al-Ghazzi, Associate Professor of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics, called the trend “a war on history.” He warned that the use of media narratives as future historical sources could shape how upcoming generations understand the events in Gaza.
The panel also pointed to specific language patterns in coverage. Hanif noted that the term “massacre” appeared 18 times more often when referring to Hamas attacks than to Israeli attacks on Palestinians. He said this imbalance reflected a wider rhetorical bias and an uncritical acceptance of Israeli government claims—particularly those targeting local journalists in Gaza.
British-Israeli journalist Rachel Shabi said Israel has consistently framed its ban on international reporters entering Gaza as a safety measure, while accusing Palestinian journalists of links to Hamas. She criticised international media outlets for accepting these narratives without challenge. Historian Avi Shlaim described Israel’s media strategy as an aggressive propaganda campaign designed to suppress criticism by labelling opponents as antisemitic.
Western media enabling Gaza genocide and rewriting history, say experts
As Israel’s war on Gaza intensifies and expands across the Middle East, media analysts and human rights advocates are raising concerns over the lack of international accountability and the role of western news outlets in shaping public perception of …MEE staff (Middle East Eye)
Like how Hamas always had hostages and the IDF only had prisoners but they were functionally the same and treatment of IDF prisoners included torture and rape.
The article says it's because of aggressive propaganda campaign from Israel. Some also say because of western islamophobia. Maybe financial interests?
The IDF tortured and rapes Palestinian hostages including children. No evidence of Hamas doing this kind of stuff.
Let's not compare Hamas to the literaI IDF.
geneva_convenience
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •