All you do is post Western propaganda and should at least be marked as such.

Interesting at which kind of posts you find the need to comment on.

Only that he doesn‘t. And I don‘t.

Your pattern: Make stuff up > act all incensed for being confronted with your bullshit > use personal attacks and accusations of lying > make stuff up again.

Either you now provide the sourcing and the quotes of what you keep yapping about or I‘ll consider you a bot, because you‘re acting like one.

Bring the receipts.

Stop making stuff up, it’s time to bring the receipts. Where exactly does “Eco’s version assumes Stalin’s regime is one of primary fascist regimes in the first place”?

Eco treated Stalinism as a seperate, parallel example of totalitarianism, explicitedly not labeling it fascist.

You gotta leave your confused reactionary, red fascism narrative and anti-communism stance behind, if you actually want to understand the world. Maybe start by not being so dishonest.

Some passages from Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism:

If by totalitarianism one means a regime that subordinates every act of the individual to the state and to its ideology, then both Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarian regimes.

It was Italian fascism that convinced many European liberal leaders that the new regime was carrying out interesting social reform, and that it was providing a mildly revolutionary alternative to the Communist threat.

Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why the word fascism became a synecdoche, that is, a word that could be used for different totalitarian movements. This is not because fascism contained in itself, so to speak in their quintessential state, all the elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.

I would have been more impressed, if you‘d actually provided argumentative content instead of personal attacks.

Not sure, what you used Umberto Eco‘s definition for, but it wasn‘t to formulate a coherent thought on the topic.

Oh, the historical fascisms such as under Stalin and Pol Pot, right.

it’s in principle undetermined in ideology

Correct in so far, as it‘s determined by economic system. Which happens to align with left/right ideology.

But the only principles really important for any kind of fascism are violence, anti-rationalism and amorphous ideology.

You’re making shit up depending on how your tummy feels, don‘t you?

Please stop using the internet.

'Both is true. Woa, imagine that. Your moral judgment of „Russia bad“ is irrelevant for interest based reality.

Russia invaded Ukraine.

History began on 7th Oct 23

@jordanlund@lemmy.world Pff 🙄

Removed by mod

Hint: not a double standard.

The imperialist West is scrambling to remain the world‘s hegemonic superpower, with the US as the big dog and the EU as its ideological vassal.

Using Ukraine to overexploit their resources and as a battleground to weaken Russia. Using Venezuela to overexploit their resources and to weaken resource-access for China. Using Israel as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in West Asia towards China. Using Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in South-East Asia directly off the coast of China.

The only double standard is the cognitive dissonance in our propagandized heads.

The German company’s presence in Xinjiang has long attracted attention in the West. Under pressure from investors and the German and U.S. governments, VW conducted an audit of the Urumqi plant, which it said last year found no evidence of human-rights abuses.

(…) After the pandemic hit, however, operations at the plant started to wind down and the factory no longer assembles vehicles.

The “proof” is “attracted attention in the West” and “under pressure from investors” - and then it found no such proof in the factory.

Why the wind down? Mentioned in the linked article from the year before:

His visit also highlighted Volkswagen’s other problem with the plant: It has fallen short of big plans the company and its joint-venture partner, the Shanghai government-owned SAIC Motor Corp., initially had for it.

“The business model has changed. There is currently no production of our own,” Mr. Brandstätter said this week after the first visit in nearly two years by a Volkswagen senior executive to the site. Chip-supply issues, as well as China’s Covid-19 curbs, contributed to the joint venture downsizing its workforce by almost two-thirds in recent years.

That time Brandstätter also said he saw nothing. Now, I’m not inclined to believe what some capitalist corpo guy says about working conditions, but this whole thing is obviously political pressure, because Germany does not want their big manufacturing corpos so deeply involved in China, as it draws capital and jobs away from the country, the whole Uyghur angle is used as a reason to build pressure.

The report asserts: “Global scrutiny of supply chains linked to Xinjiangfactories resulted in Volkswagen’s exit from Urumqi”, which is not true or if so only in the sense that the pressure resulted in the closure, but not actual abuses.

This is also clear, when you check other linked articles, for example under “a source of criticism in Germany”, which is a union leader lamenting about exactly that and also using the same age old allegations as an argument that are used every time, although economic interests are the real reason he opened his mouth in the first place.

Later in the report even notorious discredited one-man-source Adrian Zenz, ideologue and religious extremist himself is being used as source for their judgement. It’s a sham. It’s political propaganda.

This whole little one-page “report” does not bring anything new to the table. They made up some criteria and released a report towards the end of the year, so the myth is being kept alive and accounts like Hotznplotzn, that do literally nothing else other then posting Anti-China and Anti-Russia propaganda, can rile you up and manufacture consent against them.

Stop being so gullible. There is no new proof for anything. It’s a rehash to gain attention. OP is right.

Axel Springer cares fuck all about anything other than their profits, their power in German politics and being a narrative setter.

By saying „they did a very good job, …“ but after the comma instead of explaining, why you think they did a good job, you start a deflection, you immediately discredit yourself as a supposed good faith actor.

Care to try again, FactChecker?

e: oh, you‘re that kind of account. alright, bring it!

Because it’s very likely not real. These are unverifiable, imaginary numbers published by Axel Springer, the worst German journalism has to offer.

In regards to the author, the Bellingcat description says:

He was previously a freelance trainer for Bellingcat.

He is a “a trainer of media professionals specialised in new media, social media and data journalism”, “thought leader” and “visiting lector of Axel Springer Akademie in Berlin” according to this profile. He consults, teaches, sells books about his methods, but does not do investigative reporting himself (as it seems).

So, he’s legit as in that kind of way, sure is involved in stuff. But not neccessarily in a way that boosts his trustworthiness in regards of the journalistic integrity of the reporting done here.

All the students are from Axel Springer‘s trainee program, the notorious publisher known for its misinformation, slandering and yellow press. Absolutely not known for its investigative journalism, that would be a new one. Heavily biased pro capitalist, pro Ukraine, pro Israel.

The story also was published behind a paywall, around two weeks after the analysis from dronewatch.eu debunking almost all the drone sightings.

Although officials in Denmark, Germany and Belgium have repeatedly suggested Russian involvement, the data tells a different story. Only three cases involved confirmed Russian drones — all in countries bordering Ukraine: Poland, Romania and Moldova.

This means that the often-mentioned link to Russian hybrid warfare in Western Europe is still unsubstantiated. And even if, at some point, drones were observed flying in formation — as the Belgian defence minister has claimed several times — that does not automatically point to a state actor.

I press DOUBT.

To be fair, that’s called a coup and it was initiated and supported by the west. Enjoy some in depth reading through the topic page. The BBC (and other mainstream media) sadly is not a trustworthy source for reporting that’s critical of western imperialism and its war efforts (compare to highly partisan Anti-Palestine reporting).

To understand the current US-NATO war against Russia over Ukraine, it is critical to review the background and implications of the 2014 far-right coup in Kiev, which overthrew the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. The coup was openly supported by US and European imperialism and implemented primarily by far-right shock troops, such as the Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.

deleted by creator

What a very civil answer of you. Totally not the behaviour of a ridiculously propagandised teenager, that might have had a few too many low quality vodkas themselves in their short and miserable live.

Wikipedia on the Name of Ukriane

We don’t necessarily disagree, but proclaiming disregard for Ukrainian souvereignty based on the use of a definitive article in an international forum is bad faith conduct. It’s specifically an English thing and a Ukrainian/Russian thing. There are languages that are using the definitve article based on how their languages work and these kind of usages will sometimes transfer into English.

This, again, does not mean what you trying to do, discrediting another user’s opinions or arguments based on an improper use of a foreign language. That is the opposite of civil behaviour.

As a german, I had to actively learn to not use “the” in combination with “Ukraine”. It happened because of a confrontation with clever individuals like you, but that really can be done politely hinting at the proper use in the English language and not by shaming the other person.

(reup, edited out the meany words, lol, because imagine the uncivility that might be caused in this post)

Oh my, so you first accuse someone of spouting propaganda and insult them at the same time, because you don’t like their perspective, all based off of the grammatically wrong use of an article and when you’re being confronted with your shitty behaviour you play victim, because said behaviour is ousted as being the opposite of civil and the kind of people acting like that, which includes you, are being called out as the clever individuals that they are.

Bohooo, poor little ignorant victim you are.

How about you accept, that you behaved like an asshole and throw out an excuse ­- that would be more impressive. But looks like you don’t have the character strength.

An alternative would be to actually provide some kind of arguments as to why the accused’s arguments or opinions are wrong, instead of straight up denouncing them - that would also be more impressive. But looks like you don’t have the intellectual strength.

Get lost, splendid individual.

(edited out some mean words, because of this funny line that is drawn for the very selectively applied civility rule)

Removed by mod

This is dumb. It’s dependant on the mother tongue how and if a definitive article is being used with Ukraine. In German for example, you say “die Ukraine”, and a natural translation into colloquial English results in the use of “the Ukraine”. This doesn’t mean to be a Sergei.

It’s a comparison, not whataboutism. They’re comparing similar things, they’re not trying to shift the discussion somewhere else.