For all the newcomers that aren’t aware, I just stumbled upon this insane drama. Apparently lemmy.ml is the result of a reddit sub ban of a bunch of pro-china bots who vigorously defend the Chinese government, and the two top admins are also the top devs of the Lemmy source software. Pretty terrible stuff!

The linked thread is full of their insane ramblings and denialism

Edit: I seem to have been blocked from commenting, all my replies are timing out now. But I wanted to say that I don’t intend to make this post as an “anti-lemmy” thing, I think the truth should burn brightly in the sunlight. We should try to continue to grow Lemmy (especially since we’re the largest reddit clone) while calling out their propaganda and hidden motive.

Edit2: turns out I can comment, I just can’t reply to kbin user comments from my instance. Just spins indefinitely.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And 1974, post-Revolution, Portugal, which was naturally very leftwing (it came pretty close to becoming a Communist dictatorship), could’ve and yet didn’t left.

    It’s a ridiculously uniformed and childishly-simplist opinion (or just straightforward astroturfing paid by either the Putin or the CCP dictatorships) to claim that all NATO is Fascist by pointing out that more than half a century ago one of its founder (which by now has been a Democracy for almost half a century) was under the yolk of a Fascist Dictatorship hence all NATO was and is Fascist.

    It’s funny how “guilt by association” and “the present is the same as the past” are core argument techniques of autoritarian lapdogs on both the Left and the Right.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because it’s a military, not political, alliance.

        “Being a Democracy” is not a significant military criteria.

        It’s you who are comming up with your own “selection criteria” which you then claim NATO is supposed to follow (even though the criteria you made up at times go against NATO’s very clearly and firmly stated aims), and then arguing that they don’t follow your criteria hence are whatever you feel like to label those who don’t strictly follow criteria you decided they’re suppose to follow.

        That fantastic and circular line of thinking is all you, and quite unrelated to the real world.