With regard to the situation with Guaido in Venezuela, isn't it true that the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election had a voter turnout of 79% and was extremely close? Whereas the 2018 election only had a voter turnout of 45% and Maduro was re-elected amidst widespread allegations of corruption and fraud. And for the upcoming 2024 election, multiple opposition candidates have been barred from running against Maduro.
Since 2010, Venezuela has been suffering a socioeconomic crisis under Nicolás Maduro and briefly under his predecessor Hugo Chávez as rampant crime, hyperinflation and shortages diminish the quality of life.[6][7] As a result of discontent with the government, the opposition was elected to hold the majority in the National Assembly for the first time since 1999 following the 2015 parliamentary election.[8] After the election, the lame duck National Assembly—with a pro-government majority—filled the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the highest court in Venezuela, with Maduro allies. The tribunal stripped three opposition lawmakers of their National Assembly seats in early 2016, citing alleged "irregularities" in their elections, thereby preventing an opposition supermajority which would have been able to challenge President Maduro.
The tribunal approved several actions by Maduro and granted him more powers in 2017.[8] As protests mounted against Maduro, he called for a constituent assembly that would draft a new constitution to replace the 1999 Venezuela Constitution created under Chávez. Many countries considered these actions a bid by Maduro to stay in power indefinitely,[11] and over 40 countries stated that they would not recognize the 2017 Constituent National Assembly (ANC). The Democratic Unity Roundtable—the opposition to the incumbent ruling party—boycotted the election, saying that the ANC was "a trick to keep [the incumbent ruling party] in power".[14] Since the opposition did not participate in the election, the incumbent Great Patriotic Pole, dominated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, won almost all seats in the assembly by default.[15] On 8 August 2017, the ANC declared itself to be the government branch with supreme power in Venezuela, banning the opposition-led National Assembly from performing actions that would interfere with the assembly while continuing to pass measures in "support and solidarity" with President Maduro, effectively stripping the National Assembly of all its powers.
And I understand that you're not supporting Maduro. But if the US is trying to support free and fair elections which Maduro is suppressing, than they are essentially doing the opposite of supporting a fascist coup. I unfortunately don't have time to unpack each of your scenarios.
You're not wrong in saying that the US has frequently intervened in Latin America for the past 200 years, right up until the present. But intervening to protect democracy is very different from intervening to support fascism, and failing to distinguish between the two is bordering on misinformation.
Think of it this way, if it weren't the US intervening, it'd be another foreign power. And the US primarily intervenes just to keep capitalism flowing, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Panama has done quite well as a result of the US intervening and building the Canal. And Latin America has largely avoided genocides and wars of the scale that we have seen in other developing countries in Asia and Africa.
Nope. That's over at !asklemmy@lemmy.world. This is the Lemmy version of askMarxists
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as "don't talk to cops".
No, it's not life insurance. It's pathological paranoia that doesn't effectively improve one's safety. If you go through life with an incredibly simplistic model of judgement, where any interaction with men or cops is dangerous until proven otherwise, you are simply trading one set of risks for another. There are many situations where a certain cop or man could be in a position to help or protect you, and you might fail to recognize that.
If you're not making any distinction between "belittling and straight up murder", then you're really just handicapping your ability to distinguish people who are actually violently dangerous from people who are just normal people. Most people act like assholes on a regular basis, but that doesn't make them dangerous.
It has nothing to do with subjugation, it's just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I'm not subjugating other people by doing so.
But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It's not humans, it's the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.
Doesn't your paper you linked imply it isn't so obvious?
Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.
If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you're not being honest with yourself, let alone me.
What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn't crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I'm just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.
In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It's the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.
That's not my main argument, it's merely a supporting clause.
OP asserted that
white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
I countered that by pointing out that it's obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That's my main argument.
And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.
I obviously can't definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don't need to. I'm not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I'm merely pointing out that it's a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.
Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that's a fair point, but it doesn't really hold any ethical implications, it's simply a description of a material reality.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Citation needed.
In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.
But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.
It's also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.
In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
In that case, I suggest you shut down the community. At this point the core userbase and mods have moved to another location and this community only serves to confuse noobs and casuals.
I don't blame you for not wanting to research the veracity of pedo claims, but this is within your control as admins. If you have a community that is unmoderated and frequently taking up admin time and resources, simply shut it down.
It was Dessalines. He has strong personal feelings about anime and especially lolicon, which is why hosting the anime community on lemmy.ml is an unwise choice, imho
Sounds like you just played a more limited array of sports. Football is honestly not easy without uniforms, but possible especially if 7v7 or something.
But playing ultimate Frisbee, capture the flag, etc without uniforms is essentially impossible. Remembering who is on your team isn't even the hard part. It's more because you need to make quick decisions and recognize who is open immediately.
So yeah... that's how uniforms work. I would be baffled if they weren't the norm.
Did y'all use uniforms in World War II? No wonder the Germans were able to slice through your defensive lines so easily, you couldn't tell who was on which team.
declare on India
get bodied by UN coalition
max out at Saddam Hussein notoriety levels
not a World War, more of a Regional Shellacking
That bot ain't right. I've seen it responding to itself in an infinite loop in the past couple days 😂
I'll never return, regardless of what Reddit does, but I don't blame you for your position.
I'd just say don't give up yet, I think we have a pretty large chunk of people sitting on the sidelines temporarily, waiting to see if Lemmy actually becomes what it aspires to be.
Also I don't mean to be rude, but it would be nice if Tildes users just came to Lemmy and helped us build here. I'm sure many Tildes users use Lemmy anyways. Tildes is just way too small (like 10% the size of Lemmy) and even if it did take off, it would probably turn out the same way as reddit. But that's just like, my opinion, man.
Yes, as we know, the notability of national accomplishments diminishes as a function of time... other nations would never consider being proud of anything their ancestors accomplished before they were born. Lmao
If you don't have enough things to be proud of as an American, which nationality would be good enough to meet your standards?
I don't think him saying dumb stuff on his podcast is good evidence of a lack of intelligence. The podcast is an entertainment product, not an IQ test. Also, the likelihood of anyone saying something blatantly wrong/stupid is nearly 100% if you record them long enough and make them talk about a wide enough variety of topics.
I don't even wanna be defending Joe Rogan but it's just obvious that he's not below average intelligence, and pushing that propaganda contributes to the pervasive failure of the left to understand the grievances of the right. It's not as simple as all conservatives being idiots.
While I understand and respect the dunking in light of his detrimental effect on politics and sanity in general, I feel it's disingenuous to imply he's stupid. He's just smart enough to be dangerous
Very strange argument. It seems like you're bad at those games and created some elaborate theory to rationalize it. Class based games require just as much, if not more, skill than non-class based games. As the number of classes increases, the total amount of knowledge required and variety of techniques available also tends to increase.
Professional players do optimize the fun out of a game, but that's totally unrelated to the point you were trying to make.
68 civilians died in pearl harbor.
140,000 died in Hiroshima.
Your extensive knowledge of World War 2 history is astounding. Please teach me more; were there any more notable battles in World War 2, or was that it?
I don't believe in free will, so I suppose we have reached a stalemate. In my mind, one's religion or favorite color is no more of a choice than sexual orientation. But I understand that most people would disagree with that perspective, and trying to convince you that free will doesn't exist is beyond the scope of this discussion.