The simple fact is that journalism requires money, and that money comes from advertisements in the case of free online publications. This title isn’t unreasonable, it piques your interest to click the article, and the article informs you exactly about what you expected.

I don’t really have an issue with this.

Imo 4chan stands alone in how bad it is, but I see your point.

Sure, but the culture of 4chan as a whole sucks ass, even if some boards are not as bad as others.

Also, what a lot of people seem to be missing is that this only works because of rampant hypocrisy among traditional parties. They promise time and again to make life better, to make work pay, to do this and that but they always fail because they’re neoliberals - whether they are lying or just fundamentally wrong doesn’t really matter.

This then allows far right wingers to swoop in and use a lot of the same underlying logic the traditional parties use, but without the hypocrisy. They just need to swap the hypocrisy out for hate towards minority groups.

This is a lot easier than the alternative left wing parties offer, which is fundamentally not aligned with the traditional parties in the West.

Having seen it around, I absolutely hate this screenshot. The implicit message is that 4chan was/is actually good and cool, while that hasn’t been the case for a while (if it ever was). Like yeah, it’s somewhat stupid that she thought 4chan has accounts, but the point that the site is utter trash is true.

/mu/ used to be good tho

That’s the thing though, right? Something needing a change doesn’t imply any and all changes being good.

Top 1% is 80 million people, and there are a lot more than 80 million people living in western countries. I see your basic point, but the math doesn’t work out.

They’re more portable, lighter and arguably perfect for media consumption on the go. Add a decent detachable keyboard and it’s all the computer quite a few people will ever need.

Just depends on how you use your pc.

Don’t get me wrong, a class first approach is probably the most effective way to reduce hate and bigotry on a societal level. My only point was that it isn’t the only thing that’s necessary to completely eliminate it.

…you’re talking as if you’re countering what I’m saying, but you’re seemingly talking completely past me.

I don’t claim the only war is class war, nor do I think that people should stop fighting discrimination until the capital class is abolished.

Sexist attitudes won’t disappear just by abolishing the capital class, to name an example. It will definitely help though, because the capital class benefits from our current internal divisions and actively encourages it.

I agree, but racism, sexism, … won’t disappear just by abolishing the capital class. It is a huge step towards it, but not the absolute final goal.

It’s not so much that some people are excluded, but rather that class war won’t solve a lot of problems specific to (intersections of) minority groups. That’s a point that’s pretty easy to miss if you’re not part of a discriminated minority, even if you’re aware of the need for class war.

Leaving everything else aside, South Africa went from having one of the worst flags in the world to having one of the best.

This is legitimately confusing. Adding hate for a Linux DE to an established racist ass cartoon? Truly the most confusingly intersectional hate post I’ve ever seen.

Truly no way this could enforce and whitewash discrimination.

Average policeman

I’m not saying it’s a leap - I’m saying that it’s not proven, which would have to be the case for it to be qualified as a genocide.

There’s also a difference between murder with premeditation, murder without premeditation and manslaughter - all three are the death of someone at someone else’s hands, all three are crimes, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. Intentionality matters in law.

The intent is a crucial aspect of the definition of genocide, which was internationally ratified in the Genocide Convention. Suddenly ignoring that when it’s politically expedient is hugely problematic.

I also want to emphasise that something not being a genocide doesn’t mean it can’t be horrible, a crime against humanity or anything else. It’s not a defence in any way, but a matter of using the correct (legally accepted) name.

It’s been a while since I read about this, so I don’t have any sources on hand I can point to right now. The core point is that there isn’t really any proof that the Soviets’ goal was to eliminate Ukrainians as a group, which is the main requirement to classify something as a genocide.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the Holodomor didn’t happen or that the USSR isn’t to blame, only that the intent wasn’t to eradicate a people.

I hope that’s a decent starting point for you to read up on this, in case you’re interested.