14specks

I see, I'm gonna make a low-ish effort post, but I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like:

• Colonization still happens, but I think it matters that it happened in the past too. I would say that one of the most prominent recent examples would be the American invasion of Iraq. There are many political and economic aspects to the invasion, but one cultural angle is that it was widely supported by religious conservatives due to their opposition to Islam. American leadership was ghoulish in their own way, and to incompetent to actually colonize the country, but many of the literal footsoldiers joined the military to "get back at them for what they did to us", although as we know, none of the 9-11 terrorists were Iraqi.
• Another example that springs to mind is the ongoing homophobic and transphobic hate crimes. One specific example would be the Pulse nightclub mass shooting. I would suggest that most American Christians don't support death for being gay, just the same as most American/Western Muslims don't support death for burning the Quran, but in other countries where religion overlaps more with politics, both of these can be considered serious criminial offenses.

I only mean to suggest that both religions have a bit of bloodthirst in them, which doesn't apply to everyone, but is certainly comparable. We can go deeper into the details, I just felt like you were giving Christians a bit of a pass that they don't deserve.

Right, you can assume that people around here aren't racist/homophobic/transphobic etc... Cause even if they are, they're gonna catch a ban as soon as they expose themselves. They generally don't deserve your full wrath if we're fundamentally "on the same side" just cause they are kinda naive and not big fat theory nerds like some people around here.

In the future you can go against the position, but you repeatedly used "you" in this post making it personal and right up against our civility guidelines.

Because most Christians don’t feel so entitled to expect others to live by their rules, and threaten them with death when they don’t.

Ok come on, my friend. I know a bible burning won't get you the death penalty, but many many many people have been killed and imprisoned for not living to Christian values, especially in the United States. It's "just a few crazies" or whatever, but it really isn't since these actions happen in an environment of indirect public support.

UNESCO doesn't bear any authority, so the answer would be "none at all" or something like that, I guess...

always_have_been_astronaut.jpg

Like I mentioned in my other comment, I think that both leaders can and should be criticized independently, a comparison between the two is not useful.

Neither leader is socialist, so in my opinion, neither truly has the best interest of their country's working class at heart. There could be some observation and speculation about how the possible outcomes of the conflict could promote socialist aims, but that is still independent of both guy themselves.

I'd thought that even the most liberal people on nü-Lemmy had at least read some Chomsky (or even watched the documentaries based on his work), but I guess we aren't even there yet.

I'm not exactly with the other guy, but it's extremely important to realize that ALL sources are biased. The Washington post and the New York Times both function as propaganda. They often serve as the mouthpiece of the United States Department of State or Defense, and are happy to cultivate public support for military conflicts that are in the interest of the American ruling class.

This is well documented in the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. You can also listen to the podcast Citations Needed to gain a better understanding about how this works in the modern day.

An example you may be readily familiar with is the Iraq War, in which US government officials repeatedly lied to the public and started a meaningless war, without any real journalistic pushback. This lead to an atrocity affecting millions.

It seems like you had a point to contribute somewhere in there, but maybe try and communicate it in a way that isn't so pointed at the other user. We'd like to discourage that sort of toxicity here. Maybe if they were being a total shithead or reactionary, feel free to go off, but it seems unwarranted.

That sounds overly reductive to me

I mean, it's an article from a Japanese source, but yeah sure the OP is biased or whatever, but so is everyone else who regurgitates the top headline from the NYT or BBC. Since the others are part of the dominant ideology, it appears to be more transparent.

I mean, that's not strictly necessary either. Chinal allows a good many billionaires to exist, but they are hitting their emissions targets ahead of schedule, cause they don't let the billionaires run the entire show like they do in the USA.