Skiluros

I think that's a bit too reductionist and negative. Historically there have been rebellions under far worse odds (some successful, some not).

At any rate, it's probably way too early to make any predictions or conclusions.

That's the million dollar question.

At any rate I wish you guys luck. A fascist US is not a good thing for global liberal democracy.

I do wonder if there will be any bottom up resistance to the Trump regime. Things like regional refusals to implement at least some of the orders, occupation of federal buildings, detainment of regime thugs, blockade of key infrastructure nodes (airports, major highway nodes, ports etc.), detainment of senior oligarchs and collaborators.

I recognize that in the US context even talking about such things is both controversial and would be seen as a sort of a fever dream, but in the global context this is not unprecedented.

From living in the US, I don't think there will be any bottom up resistance (at least initially). US is simply too well off (on a relative basis) for most people to care, there is a strong belief in US institutions (for better or worse) and many people are brainwashed by oligarch propaganda.

That being said, these sort of things are by definition unpredictable.

The White House said on Friday that the new tariffs on Canada and Mexico will take effect on Feb. 1, denying a Reuters report that they would be delayed until March 1.

So did the tariffs take effect or not? Or are they supposed to be announced closer to the end of the day US time?

I am not arguing against this initiative and to be honest I support it even though I don't believe in it. I am just sharing my own perspective and it's not meant to be a critique of this post (even if it comes off that way). FWIW, I upvoted this post after reading the linked page.

I don't believe there is any point in engaging with russians (be it yelling at them or any kind of dialogue revolving around what I see as platitudes). This is not because they are inherently bad or incapable of change or anything like that. They are very much capable of change, not to mention that framing their behaviour in essentialist terms in many ways allows them to avoid responsibility.

Based on the facts on the ground, the lack of information is not relevant when discussing broad support for genocidal imperialism among russians. They are adults, they full well understand that invading another country, annexing their territories and enforcing their language and culture is wrong. The stuff about "nazis in Ukraine" and NATO/BATO expansion is all a ruse and the russians who promote such polemics know this.

For someone to change their mind, there has to be some sort of driver or incentive. Ethical and humanist arguments cannot change minds when a strong majority (at the very least) of the population explicitly endorses and supports a genocidal imperialist position (while also engaging in duplicitous messaging in order to whitewash their crimes in context of the world at large).

One has to be honest with russians and explicitly tell them their ruse is not going to work. That they will be treated as genocidal imperialists until they change their behaviour (end of occupation, extradition of all russians involved in war crimes, compensation for all killings and damage). Tell them that they are welcome to play the victim, lie about russophobia or support putin or do whatever; they will be treated based on their actions. If you do evil things, you will be treated as evil people, no one is buying your lies.

Now you might say this approach is unreasonable, unrealistic or lacking in pragmatism. To that I will answer; look at it from a more long term perspective. Over the last 110 years, 16 nations have de jure liberated themselves from the yoke of russian imperialism (I am not even counting Warsaw Pact countries). Reagan took an explicit position (evil empire) and lo and behold, the USSR did collapse.

I simply don't believe the vast majority of russians have any interest in changing their views (based on ethical arguments). They know what they are doing is wrong and they still support it. They need real incentives to change their tune.

Regarding the BBC article, I will point out that the Nazi regime was defeated by military force. Denazification was implemented via multi-decade allied occupation aimed at limiting any hint of revanchism both via positive initiatives such as the marshal plan and long term education initiatives. Unfortunately, this is not viable when it comes to russians.

Like I said earlier, this just my opinion and I do think it's a well meaning initiative. I would be glad to be wrong regarding the above-mentioned arguments.

That is a fair point, I see where you are coming from and I agree on a abstract level.

I guess it's more that I personally don't believe the majority of russian want to change. Platitudes about "peace with Ukraine, but also we continue to occupy 20% of your country and continue to eradicate Ukrainian culture/language/identity) in the occupied terroritories" notwithstanding.

Not to be a downer, but I don't believe access to information is the root cause of russians' support for genocidal imperialism and authoritarianism.

FWIW, russian language YT channels have been available since 2010, including international services (DW, BBC; in russian) and local opposition leaning channel such as TV Rain (Телеканал Дождь).

For the average russian the fear of shame associated with military defeat and the rejection of the notion "that russia is the greatest culture there is" stand above all other considerations. Even the lives of their own soldiers or the future of their children (the millions of lives they have destroyed in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Syria is not even on their radar).

I am not saying this is true of every single russian, but when 65% [1] to 85% [2] of the population are supportive of genocidal imperialism, this is a society-wide problem and not an issue tied to a single individual or a small group.

[1] Estimates of support for the full scale invasion of Ukraine accounting for preference falsification via list experiments and comparisons with direct polling. With the caveat that the authors of the list experiment believe their methodology under-estimates the true level of support (i.e. it is higher than 65%). [2] Estimates of support for the annexation of Crimea both via list experiments and direct polling (preference falsification with respect to the annexation of Crimea is practically nonexistent even though alleged russian liberals claim otherwise).

Facebook - Zuckerberg and his role in enabling ethnic cleansing in Myanmar

https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar-zuckerberg.html

How so? And what do you define as "antisemitism" and "antisemitic censorship"?

It depends how you use these platforms. On reddit, I go to a few somewhat niche subs (via a direct bookmark link) so I don't see any content outside of those specific niches.

On lemmy, I use this account for news/global politics, but I also have an alt where I only access content from subscribed communities and there is minimal politics.

Is Tuberville lying?

It's been a long time since I lived in the US, but I do remember not being convinced by the sincerity of many senior politicians around things such as abortion, free markets and so on. It felt like a ruse to gain/maintain power and promote the interests of whatever oligarchs they were working for.

One notable example would be local senator Rand Paul promoting the use of ivermectin for COVID a few years ago.

I had several acquaintances who studied to become doctors. From my interactions with them, I got the impression that the US medical education system was rather demanding and did not allow for random degeneracy.

I believe Paul finished a highly competitive US medical school, so it is reasonable to assume that the tantrums around using ivermectin for COVID were driven by political considerations. It seems that Paul knew that it was not a legitimate medicine in context of COVID and he knowingly promoted misinformation (and put people at risk) for political gain.

Is this a similar sort of scheme? i.e. Tuberville's granddaughter is actually vaccinated and her parents and Tuberville actually support vaccination in private but Tuberville is acting out publicly for political reasons? I am assuming it is not possible to find out whether his granddaughter did or did not get vaccinated (medical privacy).

Or am I overthinking this?

It seems like the only semi-viable alternative to oligarch run social networks.

I am not American, but the behaviour exhibited by oligarchs such as Zuckerberg/Musk (and these are just the ones that get in the news) is not at all surprising.