NY Times publishes hit job on anti-war activists; solidarity must be the answer
NY Times publishes hit job on anti-war activists; solidarity must be the answer
Once in a while, the New York Times runs an article that reveals what this media conglomerate really represents. People often call the Times “liberal.” That’s because it seems to oppose some of the most reactionary politicians, like president #45, and gives ample opinion space to diverse voices.
Unlike others, Singham actually did give away significant parts of his fortune. He gave it to leftist causes — and that’s why he, as well as his life partner Jodie Evans, a founder of Code Pink and a leading political activist, were targeted.
ETA: NYT Reveals That a Tech Mogul Likes China—and That McCarthyism Is Alive and Well
I'm conflicted. The article is justified in it's argument that the Times seems to provide escalating rhetoric to prepare the US for possible hostility/conflict, and I don't support them smearing someone like was described in the article....however I don't support these activists either. I think we can be pro-humanity without being pro-China. I'm not okay with the actions of the Chinese government and what they've systematically done to the minorities of their country and their constant aggressive stances in the South China Sea, their posturing over Taiwan, and the takeover of Hong Kong.
How can solidarity be the answer when both sides are unreasonable? Do you support a warmongering and hostile newspaper rhetoric, or a self-described Marxist, Maoist (pro-communist), pro-China activist?
So you call China "aggressive" yet are totally okay with the British controlling a colony halfway across the world? You really tell on yourself when you say shit like that, and you wandered into a non-liberal space where you will actually be called out on it.
what they’ve systematically done to the minorities of their country
What have they done?
their constant aggressive stances in the South China Sea
The South what Sea?
takeover of Hong Kong.
Taking things over is when you get back territory previously seized by a colonial empire.
Anyone practicing Socialist thinking is practicing a form of Marxism, in which Maoisim\Communism With Chinese Characteristics has its roots. So naturally, you are going to see ideological overlap between the two. Wouldn't it be reasonably disingenuous to draw a straight line between someone's Socialist and Anti-War points of view and whatever you imagine the Chinese government to be? To rephrase, wouldn't it be disingenuous to attempt to paint someone who holds Socialist and Anti-War points of view to also be 100% Pro-China in all regards, good and bad?
I'm trying to meet you where you are if it wasn't clear. McCarthyism vilified people in support of strong labor unions, a belief that also has a shared lineage with Marxism, as agents of the USSR. This doesn't feel that different to me. You have to be willing to accept a nuanced approach to these existing socialist states if you share any socialist points of view, otherwise, you are just upholding an unrealistic ideal that no one can ever actualize.
Okkkay kkkracker. Kkkeep dropping bombs on the rest of the world.
Yes, I'm literally the person pushing the buttons to drop bombs on people. You got it. Are you literally the guy that's genociding Uyghurs? You the one with the gun?
This is entirely pointless. Can't even discuss an article without immediately devolving to insults and racism. This is why lemmygrad is getting defederated, because of little, racist, pricks like you.
