No one on hexbear likes Russia in its current state. No one thinks it is a “neo-USSR” (lmao). Russia is not Communist and no self respecting communist would call it that. The West is imperialist and bad, the most obvious example of this being the entire global south.
No one on hexbear likes Russia in its current state.
Meanwhile in this thread by hexbear users: “nothing Russia is doing is that bad, they should just become citizens, stop hating on russia”
For “not liking” Russia imperialism, they sure spend a lot of fucking time apologizing for Russia’s imperialism. We can hate multiple despotic shitholes at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.
I mean the fact that you think the people of hexbear support the Russian Federation thinking its communist but then go on to say they have no nuance or political intelligence is kind of funny
sure, make comparisons between Nazi Germany, Apartheid Israel and … Russia
Are Ukrainians being crammed into a strip being bombed constantly without food or water? Russia despite being reactionary in many ways (eg LGBTQ rights) is relatively tolerant towards religious and ethnic minorities.
Oh fuck off. Russia is committing cultural genocide and is constantly bombing civilian targets. Russia thinks nothing of bombing hospitals or other civilian infrastructure. The only reason the Ukrainians are not also being crammed into a strip is because Russia's military hasn't been capable of doing that.
Actually, yes, Ukrainians that happened to live in the east of Ukraine are in fact stuck in a literal war zone without feasible way to live… unless they accept Russian “citizenship”, that is
While it’s true all of Western Europe is guilty, there’s a reason why people point to Britain first and foremost. Its empire was pretty much the codifier of what people think of when the word “superpower” is used. There wasn’t such an uncontested concentration of power in a single polity that could be projected globally until the UK came out on top from the Napoleonic Wars then went on to subjugate Asia and Africa by the mid-late 19th Century, essentially becoming master of the world market and trade networks (at least until the onset of WWI). Not even the Spanish and Portuguese Empires held such a monopoly. Even after the start of Britain’s terminal decline into becoming America’s lapdog in the cold war, it still influenced world politics in ways that still affect us today (relevantly, it was originally Israel’s patron power before the US supplanted them sometime in the 70s/80s).
If it works anything like US medical laws, a girlfriend or fiance would need to have his medical power of attorney to make such a request. His next of kin would not.
Someone explain this to me? Hamas is a terrorist group the controls the Palestinians in Gaza. They are not representive of most Palestinians. So this feels like an easy, “yes I condemn Hamas,but also the Palestinian people are being screwed by the Israeli government”
Most people don't have an issue with it. But starting each interview with a question: "Do you condemn Al-Qaeda?" is sinister. It is not a good faith question.
If you are asked this question each time you want to speak about atrocities committed against civilians and have to proclaim that you do not in fact support terrorists, you have the right to be offended. Especially when the person asking you that question cannot condemn cutting off water to civilians.
After 9/11, thousands of Arabs living peacefully in the US were asked to condemn Al-Qaeda, which they did because who wouldn't? That condemnation and support was used to justify attacking Iraq - the country where Al-Qaeda was not located in, and resulted in the death of a million people there. Imagine being an American Iraqi supporting the US's right to "defend itself" and seeing your family in Iraq and their children being killed.
There is a level of analogy here where a person with relatives in Gaza is asked by interviewers that question while trying to advocate to not cut water or bomb one of the most densely populated places in the region.
You have the right to be offended if people start asking you to condemn segregation, Nazism, or bigotry when you never claimed that you don't have an issue with those things. Especially when the person asking you is using it as a tactic while you are trying to alarm about human rights being violated, and civilians / children being hurt.
The meme is that westerners care more that that the people that are seeing their kids murdered condemn the only (while very imperfect) group that is helping them instead of focusing on the fact that kids are being murdered.
America is a white supremacist nation, if you click that option you won’t be able to get your flight. In any civilized nation such an option would be illegal (as it’s not their fucking business) but because they’re a shithole country with no oversight, they get to fuck people over their views.
Its not healthy to be so angry on the internet. You should cook dinner with your mom instead. Do it with her not for her. She will appreciate the time you spend with her.
Don’t know where that comes from, but I think it has to do with the institutionalized authoritative power that comes with the job. Both are positions that can be abused, and can negatively impact people’s lives.
On the other hand, my past landlords were nowhere near as helpful about noise complaints, as the police. So there’s that.
To elaborate on what @ShimmeringKoi said, as a landlord they must collect rent. That is inherently an extractive and exploitative relationship and they can only extract rent with the implicit threat of violent removal from your home if you do not pay it. And the arm of the state with the monopoly on said violence is the police, ergo landlords are cops.
Sorry I still don’t get it. Cops embody the violent coercion that is needed to enforce contracts and laws. Laws determine how contracts are made and what penalties for breaking them. Contracts are a legal confabulation that serve several functions, probably most relevant is they are the mechanisms that makes property ownership possible, such as land. Landlords have the personal property “rights” as outlined in property law and defined by the contract. Cops enforce the laws and contracts with violence.
Cops can only be landlords if they own property and collect rents. Landlords don’t have the ability to use violence to enforce their property rights, they have to call the cops. They both occupy this weird class middle zone that is neither bourgeoisie nor worker: collecting rents doesn’t necessarily make one a capitalist, land isn’t really strictly capital; cops aren’t proletarian workers though at one time they may have been working class with nothing to sell but their labor. Both are crucial to underwriting liberal private property relations which is the basis for capitalist exploitation and the class rule that emanates from it. But landlords have a completely different relation to production than cops, so they don’t occupy the same class position.
I’m not debating and I’ll read or watch anything recommended to me. I’m also mostly interested in specific and correct formulations of class, I study a lot and have high standards. If this is one of those things that is more agitational than strictly correct, I can live with that but if there is a critical formulation that I’m missing, or if this is a paradigm that other leftists are using to help formulate their views then I would very much like to understand
Are cops just the ones on the beat, in uniform, harassing the unhoused, killing protestors or just innocent people caught in the gears of capital? I think most of us would say no, obviously not. There are also detectives and all manner of plain clothes officers, but there are also all the prosecutors, the judges, the DAs etc.
These are all surely also cops, right? After all, we call her Kopmala for a reason. So what about landlords then? Do they not slot neatly into this power structure? Are they not just a half step removed from that legitimized arm of violence that is the state enforcing property rights?
Can your landlord inspect your home? Can they decide on a whim to utilize that violent arm of the state to kick you out on the street if they feel that you are not adequately maintaining - or even better, improving - the value of their property?
In all of these ways the landlord is more of a cop than the DA or the judge.
I guess I don’t totally agree with calling everyone that exists within that weird administrative class “cops,” but it isn’t a critical disagreement. I get what you mean though, thanks for the explainer
This is the internet. Everything we dislike is the same. Landlords are cops, Nazis, Russians, Israelis, authoritarians, libertarians, racists, homophobes, and transphobes; all at the same time.
I don’t dislike Russians. I am also curious of your definition of “authoritarian.” I am pro-liberation and pro-revolution, both things which would require a change in authority, either the colonized or the otherwise oppressed exerting their “authority” over their oppressors. Revolutions are by nature authoritarian. Also most of those things should be reviled and are not contradictory.
hexbear.net
Oldest