Consider posting what you did.

Thanks I try to achieve at least 30% good and 70% bad comments.

For questions like that pretty much no newspaper is trustworthy.

However you made a claim that is a known propaganda lie, I gave you sources, yet you do not say: “I was wrong, I will delete that sentence from my post and make a disclaimer to it!”, no you try to defend your lie.

You say “while it wasn’t specifically true, you could imagine that over 70 years in some countries of 1.2 billion it might’ve be true somewhere!”

Again, family of mine was prosecuted in the liberal western FRG for homosexuality and sent to prison. 30 years earlier they would’ve ended up in death camps.

The mother of a friend of mine was homeless in the GDR. She got a flat, she got education, she got work, she got a nice family, she had healthcare, they bought a house. My friend is much worse off now.

Che on the other hand was a homophobic bigot who attempted to eliminate the queer people from Cuba

Liar. You are spewing propaganda. You could read AskHistorians for that.

You are quite reactionary. Seek groups and listen, you need to be participating in collectives to grow as a person.

That site has yellow fascists / yellow monarchists, "An"Caps listed, they aren’t anarcho anything.

That is not correct. Black and red has a variety of meanings, anarcho syndicalist ones being part of them. Anarcho communism is now more common for that combination. I do absolutely agree with you that they would join in and kick the gadsen person and my gay comrades would join in, too.

But France wasn’t the only example of a republic at that time, and what even inspired the French revolution was the United States establishing itself after breaking away from England

That is very wrong and not historical correct. However you don’t talk to historians, but think for yourself without evidence or archives so you will never accept that.

And yet throwaway is a racist and aligns well with nationalists:

This shit is why not every migrant is good. They bring their shitty homophobic culture with them.

They would be cheered for with that sentence in Nazi bars.

A little step, but an important one.

Do you label yourself as libertarian or something like that? This post and the other one hint at it: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/1115631

Is in your eyes the problem the “corporatism” of capitalism? If yes it would be funny that a person that ate that propaganda is defending fascists, since you would be carrying water for fascists.

Yes. I typed in “White Supremacists 2020 USA” and this is what I got in the first rows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

Look at those flags: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#/media/File:Charlottesville_‘Unite_the_Right’_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg

1 Nazi flag per 2 Gadsen “Tread on me” flags and per 3 confederate flags.

Meanwhile when you search for “tread on me” flag usa 2020 you will get a vast majority of right wing white supremacists posing with that flag and little else.

Just like I would never care about the ends reached by colonialist means.

That is good and yet: Which country are you living in?

I would like to add that liberal well of people and large land owners which also labeled themselves as somewhat liberal in Italy before the Fascists came to power were quick in allying with the Fascists and enact violence against socialist and communist groups and structures they supported, for example unions. The liberals did use violence to shut off that political and economic enemy, yet they didn’t then to fight the fascists and also didn’t ally with socialists to stand against the fascists.

You can find very extensive studies about that which use voting shares before the take over and alike.

To put it bluntly while liberals espouse liberal values when the situation is rough they - or be it people with means, economic, political, parliamentary or party mandates - regularly did chose to fight socialists, anarchists and communist to not rock the boat and to not be uncivil.

He is right though. It isn’t a fallacy, the usage of the word tankie is so far removed from content that it is a bad term and more thought terminating than anything.

Tankies were originally a small subset of some Western and some, mostly East European, socialists and communists which were in favour of a (para-)military response to the revolt in Hungary in 1956. It was a complex situation and even people not on the side of Nagy within Hungary were in favour of the Soviet action.

The term now was used, and amplified by intelligence agencies and Western media, to decry the Soviet action and more importantly de-legitimize several communist groups. In that sense the functional usage of the term is similar, but the question is where would the slur hit actually?

In principle it would hit a small sub section of MLs who followed Khrushchev’s decision. Many people within the pact did see the de-Stalinisation and how it was communicated as problematic, as it enabled opposition forces to claim ground in countries. Nagy tried to do introduce reforms, the most far reaching: “Hungary to leave the Warsaw Pact and declare neutrality in the Cold War.”

Countries thinking about leaving the dominant two powers spheres of influence during the Cold War were often met with violence. See the Jakarta Method for more information about that (i.e. Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, the whole of South America). During that time colonialism was also still relevant and colonial powers did use excessive violence, this is another part of the book.

Now what you and others do is labeling people who are to the left of the Soviets at that point as Tankies. Which is doubly wrong and cynical. What is interesting is that the slur can be traced back for the last 6 years to the US and there to more right wing places. It wasn’t primarily a phrase that was used by leftists. However after the heating chamber of the alt right online people used it to label even people who are democratic socialists at best.

In that sense it is a continuity to the Red Scare, to not have to engage with content.

Luckily the US would never in the 1950s use regime change in countries, for example it would never use military force in Guatemala to ensure the profits of the United Fruit company and the CIA director’s family or

1948–1960s Italy
1949 Syrian coup d'état
1949–1953 Albania
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1956–57 Syria crisis
1957–58 Indonesian rebellion
1959–2000 assassination attempts on Fidel Castro
1959 Cambodia, Bangkok Plot
1960 Congo coup d'état
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1961 Cuba, Operation Mongoose
1961 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnamese coup d'état
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1965–66 Indonesia, Transition to the New Order
1966 Ghanaian coup d'état
1971 Bolivian coup d'état
1970–1973 Chile
1976 Argentine coup d'état
1979 Salvadoran coup d'état
1979–1989 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1975–1992 Angola, UNITA
1981–1990 Nicaragua, Contras
1982 Chad
1996 Iraq coup attempt

Its a pet peeve of mine, which urban-rural area are you living in? Which language would you like to learn?

Yes, cause you don’t deserve it. Information is at your finger tips, you can’t comprehend them as you are not an expert of the domain, but you know how to contact some. While not always if one brings an extraordinary claim - like you did - or is uninformed their speech and sentiment is not on the same level to be regarded as others is. Especially since you do center your sentiment instead of that of affected.

But I have a brain and when I see someone disparage a country’s education system based off of a single percentage statistic I’m allowed to shit on it.

Show me where you did do “shit on it” when a person was “disparaging” a country which gets negative media bias in the US. Btw. you have no clue if they did do that based on a single statistic, that was only what was posted. No one will read a book as comment. You assume too much here. Also: The want to defend a country (or its reputation) instead of helping the people who could be affected is a problem, this means you are more a nationalist (and you seem to be US American, that means you are even centering your own country) than you care about people who are as example functionally illiterate.

I hope you are a young person. Over time you will learn that understanding a field takes time and that you need to spend months to get the required minimum knowledge for it. I suggest to you to actually speak with people who work in the field and do research in the field, then you will have done a short cut and can judge whether you want to help fix the problem, the structures or help individuals or if you just wanted to be right online, no matter the real life consequences for people around you.

In any case you are currently lacking the knowledge to differentiate terms, how they are used and how certain numbers are generated. Instead of trying to become an expert I recommend to you again: Speak with the experts, it is a great shortcut.

Besides that you haven’t demonstrated that you are willing to discuss, learn or do your work, which means that you aren’t really a person to be argued with online.

Should we always assume that the person to initiate a claim is more credible than lower a commenter? I agree armchair conjectures (by me) arent very helpful but it was more my intention to highlight the questionable lack of support for a claim like America doing a poor job educating people.

That claim is not at all questionable!

However even if the US would do a good job, liberal economic professor Robert Reich does present in this course good reasons that the inhomogenity of the results and who profits from what is a problem in its own that ought to be solved in terms of schooling etc.

I hate to extrapolate data as an idiotic internetter but being born in the US and being illiterate could also be because

The thing is that so often people who have no clue about things and the real living situations of people do talk down on people who are experts about those questions or affected. Effectively a lot of what you did was muddying the water and thus implicitly justifying that there might be good or acceptable reasons.

You were nationalist and you were racist with that and you were also ignorant of your own history and by being that ignorant you again actively(!) marginalized the BIPoC people in the US, as well as muddied class. In your other answers you were ableist and not kind either. You could’ve been kind, but you weren’t.

Lol damn you don’t have to call me a racist

Well then don’t act like one. Don’t try to defend faults of your country, try to help the people affected by the faults. Listen to affected people and listen to experts. This is a chance to grow for you. You can be kind and you can create a welcoming place for others. To do that you would need some collective work though and maybe read How To Become an Anti-Racist (and you could also watch the liberal lecture series by Robert Reich to get more how red lining works).