Sam Altman has refused to even provide evidence for this. His claim only has legs due to implicit sinophobia in his audience.

Then you need to work on your empathy and understanding of geopolitics.

Least racist settler

The entirety of their logic is myopic electoralism handed down to them by the most insufferable party climbers imaginable. If you are against their neoliberal blue genocider, you must be for the other tean’s red neoliberal genocider, because all of politics must be condensed to the next / the last election day and which neoliberal horse may win it.

You’re talking to people that want to continue rationalizing their tacit, frequently racist support for genocide, and their easiest out has always been to say, “but Trump is worse”. They have never done the introspection required to look at their own personal role as a political being beyond what they’re told to do by the Democratic Party and their donors: slacktivist vote shaming, always presuming the high ground for themselves (even while tolerating genocide!), and doing as little as possible on the ground outside of minor exercises in false catharsis like a cop-escorted, permitted march or an ignored letter writing campaign.

When challenged on this by people on the left that do read and do self-reflect, these are the folks that responded in bad faith, even when the context is genocide, because they have made politics into an extension of their egos rather than a project to which to subordinate yourself and devote real work to.

Whining about .ml is their way of pretending to be vindicated every time Trump does something bad, as they cannot actually argue against what the people in .ml say, they must rely on inventions and emotional implications.

In short, many on .ml vocally opposed supporting genociding Democrats. None that I’m aware of expected Trump to be better. At best, a roll of the dice.

Sounds like a good thing given the reasons they are “leaving”.

If instances are like separate Reddits then it is just like getting a siteban.

Also something being “politics” does not mean it should entitle you to other spaces. This is how reactionaries self-victimize to excuse, say, transphobia.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf

They don’t even mention the word genocide because that is an accusation exclusive to US propaganda think tanks and those who cite them, i.e. their funders (the US State Department and other imperialist countries’ similar state organs) and friendly media. It is baseless bullshit that can only be entertained by the ignorant.

If you keep searching, you will find another “UN” “report” that attacks China, but this is not the OHCR, it is the usual propaganda thing where countries invite propagandists to a meeting and have them read out accusations. It is not any kind of investigation.

Getting away with the behavior of tempbans from a single comm pointlessly insulting?

You’ll find that on basically every instance, they’ll just have a different standard on what is an unhelpful insult and who it is okay to attack. For example, other instances will tolerate the typical American acceptance of xenophobia and .ml will not. And if you simply describe someone on .world as excusing support for genocide because they’re trying to justify advocating for someone enabling it, they’ll ban you for “misinformation” and “trolling” because their liberal partisan tendencies have been shaken.

Banning someone from an instance also bans them from communities they participate in. Or at least, it used to.

Uncritically spreading xenophobic propaganda will of course get you a tut-tut of some kind. As it should.

The dying empire continues to lash out and pax americana is a myth.

Under capitalism, profit maximization is necessary for the company you own to survive. You cannot be a “nice capitalist”, at least not for long. A person that is nice will have to conform their behavior to maximize profits anyways.

This dynamic does not exist in other systems, where your class membership makes you a relentless recursive tool of the market.

That’s describing capitalism, where profit maximization is systemically required for one to fulfill their role at “the top” and monopoly is the best way to increase profits.

Historically, “greed” was not the main characteristic of the ruling class. They did not exist under capitalism. Money itself often meant little. Land, a military, prestige, yes. But money fir money’s sake was officially frowned upon and generally left to the clergy to handle the hypocrisy.

No, feudalism has different economic relations than capitalism. It is about farm product graft from land-bound peasants on penalty of death or injury. Capitalism is about wage working. Capitalism emerged in the context of feudalism, so there were periods where both existed side by side, but capitalism is clearly different.

Nazis executing civilians is bad. Partisans executing civilians is bad. A bad action is bad no matter the intention. Insert some quote about how the history is filled with good intentions.

Again, this is not a serious geopolitical thought.

Tell the ‘unlawful’ killed that it’s ok, it was a growing power who haven’t attacked someone for a long time and just tries to lift your country out of poverty that bombed you to bits not the cashking warmongerer, and see if they agree with your reasoning.

Respond to my reasoning in any way whatsoever.

Do you think the USSR and Eastern Europe were free from the tendencies of capitalism to create imperialist war? The only post-WWII wars in Eastern Europe were skirmishes by capitalist-funded nationalists (quasi-fascists) and the civil war in Yugoslavia exacerbated by NATO to balkanize the country. The wars that the USSR supported were all pre-existing national liberation movements against imperialist colonizers, and they nearly always entered after imperialists had thrown massive resources into oppression. For example, Vietnam.

I thought it would be implied that I’m speaking about modern times. The economic system is the msin driver in large societies, though. In Europe, prior to capitalism, the primary determinant was feudal interests.

Chimps don’t have war. They fight, but is every skirmish a war? Wars come from creating and wielding armies.

Capitalism is the primary driver of wars, it determines the basic structure of what is and is not permissible, generates nation-states (these did not always exist, actually), and then creates the conditions by which the national bourgeoisie nation-states push for war in order to become international bourgeoisie (imperialists).

For example, the US keeps the middle east in a regular state of war to prevent them from having independent policies regarding oil. It is concerned about oil because of the petrodollar. It is concerned about the petrodollar because it is th3 primary financial war instrument by which it jeeps other countries sending superprofits its way and otherwise screwing with countries using interest rates. And it does those things because the US is the global seat of capital, it is where the big finance companies are based.

How many wars have there been in the middle east since 2000? How has the US been involved? Do they just do it for the thrill of domination?

And in those times the causes were things like feudalism.