• RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.netBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      2 years ago

      Klufas blames the branding of Hunka as a Nazi on “Russian disinformation,” adding, “the fact that he was a soldier does not mean that he was a Nazi.” He also said there was nothing wrong with Parliament applauding a man “who fought for his country.”

      Can we applaud Russian soldiers then?

      • JuneFall [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        the fact that he was a soldier does not mean that he was a Nazi

        WTF. This is trying to apply the clean Wehrmacht myth on Waffen-SS volunteers. That the professor is saying only members of the NSDAP were Nazis is something that would be crossed out as wrong due to reduction in any homework you have to write at school or uni over here.

      • neo [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 years ago

        Everything that is politically inconvenient for our ruling hegemony in this moment is Russian disinformation at worst, Soros funded as a middle ground, and Chinese propaganda at best. You don’t even have to justify or prove it. Just claim it and it becomes as real as the ground under your feet.

    • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      2 years ago

      Normal response: “The SS guy who slaughtered poles was a Nazi.”

      Liberal response: “well, ackshually, we have to first consider Plato’s dialogues. For example,”

        • ziggurter [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Yep. And not just the GOP and their tiki-torch-weilding fans, either. The fascism is fucking deeply rooted in U.S. politics, and always has been.

          ecological and economic catastrophes in the future that liberalism is wholly unsuited to deal with…they’re getting everybody else ready intellectually and emotionally for why that’s gonna be okay when it happens why they’re not really people…when we’re putting all this money into more walls and drones and bombs and guns to keep them away and so that we can watch them die with clear conscience

          This is what liberals (Democrats in particular) really mean when they say they want to “treat climate change like a national security issue”. People are suckered into thinking it just means they are going to take it seriously and prioritize it. No. It’s the same sense in which they have always used the term “national security”. It literally means they are going to crack down harder on immigration, make sure that capitalist enterprises close to the security state profit like crazy (e.g. securing them the Arctic trade routes), shoot “looters” when they are just trying to survive after climate disasters, crack down on the climate movement as it demands systemic change, etc. Aviva Chomsky did a really good talk a couple years ago about immigration and went into this very clearly.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      2 years ago

      Could you imagine this treatment for ISIS? “Well, he volunteered to join ISIS but we don’t know if he specifically did any crimes and you could see why am Iraqi would join ISIS to fight against Americam occupation. Anyway, ISIS beheaded a ton of people lol.”