Still, misleading title, he's not proposing a war. Could it potentially lead to war? Yeah but it's very, very unlikely Mexico would actually declare war on America.
What the fuck do you think putting your military into another country uninvited is? What the fuck are you doing quibbling over "potentially" a war or not? What you're essentially saying here is that you're ok with it as long if Mexico cowers and doesn't fight back.
This is a disgusting level of nationalism. You're already making excuses for america.
I never said I wasn't against this, I'm merely saying the title should've been something like, "Ron DeSantis proposes uninvited drone strikes on Mexican cartel"
How dare you shove my words back into my mouth! I wasn't endorsing it! I was merely using Bush era talking points to obscure the reality of those actions and diminish their impact!
The United States is not an arbiter of which Mexicans are to be extrajudicially executed by drone strikes. You're acting like a coward who's only too happy the Mexicans are too weak to strike back.
Yes, you know that the US can do almost anything it wants and that it won't trigger a war with Mexico. It can sanction thousands or millions to death by starvation and lack of medical supplies. It can bomb people. It can seize and occupy territory if it really wants to. Not because the US wouldn't be waging war then, but because the Mexicans and the rest of latin america are too weak to fight back. And in knowing this you can then claim that, actually, 'this is misleading 4/5 pinocchios Ron DeSantis only wants the right to do a little gunboat diplomacy with capital punishment characteristics and that's not really a war'.
I'm sure that if China drone bombed someone in New York the Americans would be super chill about it.
The US hasn't declared a war since WW2, they've still gone to war. Neither the US nor Libya declared war on each other but it still counts as a war when the US bombs the absolute shit out of a country.
Well yeah, you OBJECTIVELY can't call what happened in Libya a "war". It was bad and unnecessary, but by definition, not a war... You did not have US troops fighting Libyan troops.
You're fighting with the air. I very clearly said Libya wasn't ok.
You're right, massacres aren't battles and we shouldn't call them that. Of course that doesn't make it any better but why call it a battle if it's not?
Of course, I forgot when you call it something other than war then it's not a war! That's why we have the Korean Police Action, the Vietnam Police Action, the Police Actions in Panama and Grenada, Desert Police Action 1 & 2 in Iraq, and the Global Police Action on Terror! None of those were wars, right?
So you'd be okay with the Chinese dropping a bomb on a house in your neighbourhood because some right-wing nut was gonna blow up a government building?
At this point you really need to define what a "war" is because all you're doing is dancing around without having to actually stake any claim to an argument. Instead of getting indignant at people drawing conclusions from what you DO say, make the substance of your opinion known so it can be examined and criticized openly.
Explain what the difference is between having your military attack another country and a "congress didn't say it's a war but it's really a war".
Right, but we’re just talking in the abstract. You have a definition of war, I’m asking if there is a conventional war, one state opposing another site, trying to gain the other’s resources or territory - you don’t consider this a war unless both countries explicitly declare war on the other?
I'm sure the regime who drone struck weddings, hospitals, and loves to double-tap to catch civilians coming to help victims in the aftermath can be trusted to only kill "terrorists" (don't ask what they define as a terrorist)
Maybe you should worry more about your meth-addled midwest shithole than try to turn socal into a warzone? Jesus christ I wish we could drone strike whatever meth lab you're posting from.
Jfc did Russian propagandists just put the pronouns for these bots...on shuffle? I'm not saying all of you guys are bots but it seems like the majority. Lol I wonder if there's a script I can use to shut you down.
Nope, it would make sense if the pronoun tags were 90% he/him and she/her, but the extent of variation among the tags user choose is completely unrealistic and arbitrary that any community would have.
Any tankie space would obviously be like 98% he/him neckbeards only.
We're a radically pro-trans community. A purge of transphobes near the beginning was a formative moment for our community. We're radically welcoming of trans folks, so a lot of trans folks post here.
Also trans folks are disproportionately leftist (for a good reason, liberation for trans folks cannot come through capitalism), the idea that "tankies" would be majority "he/him neckbeards" is silly, if not actually outright transphobic.
trans folks are disproportionately leftist for a good reason
I said "tankies," not leftists. I'm sure most trans people are democratic socialists, anarchists, or non-authoritarian communists. I have a hard time believing a lot of you guys aren't disinformation bots.
The way "tankie" is used today it just means communist who has actually read communist theory and understands the nature of imperialism and applies it correctly to the current geopolitical situation in the world.
Solipsism and paranoia win the day in your brain yet again. People can't possibly earnestly have these opinions, because I'm not used to them, must be bots. Doesnt matter that they have three years of post history where they talk about innocuous stuff that has nothing to do with Russia and china. Thats just part of the act. And the fact that you think the pronoun tags make it MORE likely that we're bots is even more laughable.
Its really fucking depressing seeing how effective the "bot" propaganda has been.
At this point I don't think you're a bot but it's pretty obvious many of you are. The fact any and every comment gets 10+ upvotes in 15 minutes is unnatural for a site like this. There should be some comments with under 5 upvotes but I NEVER see hexbear comments get under that.
I have a hard time believing any community is that gender diverse.
The fact any and every comment gets 10+ upvotes in 15 minutes is unnatural for a site like this. There should be some comments with under 5 upvotes but I NEVER see hexbear comments get under that.
What can I say, we're a united front when it comes to arguing with liberals. Honestly, we didnt really see upvote totals as high as these before federation, which I think is a combination of the fact that we're, like I said, united in the face of these issues, and also the fact that some people in other instances agree with us. We care about each other and communist is a collectivist ideology. There's also a lot of us. And trust me, if you believe I"M not a bot then I can tell you that in the three years before federation noone here stuck me as not being a genuine human being. Other than the bit accounts and like the like, two actual bots we made for specific purposes.
I have a hard time believing any community is that gender diverse.
Damn, thats weird because every community I'm a part of is gender diverse. Even not explictly leftist ones, like I'm in a discord server for a streamer called Barry and like half the server is trans or nonbinary. I'm pretty used to interacting with trans and enby people in my life at this point. Have a fair few of them in my life offline as well. This seems like a you problem.
maybe take even five minutes to think about what you're suggesting here: you believe Russia or China or whatever has created 20.000 bots just for them to sit around on their own instance for three years before federating?
You're talking about one of the oldest lemmy instances, the most active established instance, and the instance with highest per capita activity, at a time when activity has suddenly become higher than ever because suddenly there are a bunch of redditors saying awful shit all over our feeds and we can go dunk on them without needing to bother with accounts on different sites for the first time in over three years.
You're also vastly overestimating what bots require and do: all we have to do is look at the largest and most sophisticated botnets - the CIA/State Department astroturfing botnets - to see how even the laziest and crudest copy/pasta spam is all it takes to completely dominate and drown out opposition. Literally no one needs to be sneaky, just yell the exact same verbatim press release quote over and over from ten thousand firstnamelastname12345 accounts with stock photo profile pics and you control the conversation completely and no one cares if you get caught out, like the CIA/State Department bots constantly do.
You're also claiming that the instance was built up with chatbots more sophisticated than anything there is today - and all of those still-not-coherent most-sophisticated AIs are extremely expensive to run - starting at a time when the most advanced language generating AI was GPT-2, which was only a step or so above old markov chain babbling. You can literally go and look at the ancient post history yourself.
I would believe you, but it's very possible you're a bot and everything you just said is an AI trained to say this in order to make people reduce their doubts about your user authenticity.
quite literally no. I'm a trans person and find hexbear to be one of the most radically accepting of any online space I've ever encountered next to purely trans ones. in some cases moreso because we ban truscum.
I've met many liberal politicians, activists, and organizers in my life. I've been to many polling places dominated by liberals. This is absolutely not true and a weird thing to say - tons of women and Black people are present. Liberalism is a white supremacy upholding system, but it's also the only option many marginalized people believe they have because of how closed off political horizons are in the US. For careerists, it gives an opportunity to be a black face in a high place.
No, that is true, even if it is less directly disqualifying of the specific political tendencies, and the closing of practical horizons of American politics meant that there is a vast demobilization of political action. So, mostly because voting and engagement with mainstream politics is highly correlated with several axes of privilege, white people vote more than non-white, wealthy vote more than poor, etc. So, most mainstream politics and all electoral positions over-represents white middle-to-upper class. There is less of a gender gap on the face of it for parties than one would think because there are a lot of white and women from conservative areas that vote Republican. But there is also a boomerang effect of people that are privileged enough to not suffer ill effects of failure of sabotaged progressive movements such as the Black Panthers and Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition are more likely to vote to the left of the Democratic Party. Because you could get some minor pork-barrel spending if you support the establishment over progressive candidate that will just be crushed by the machine or fizzle out due to internal fractures and more minor sabotage.
So, yes they are. Maybe that is 90% of electoral politics, but it is true that Soc-Dems are disproportionately white men. Though that is more of mainstream politics over-representing privilege on many axes. And also if it is divorced from daily struggle and immediate issues (as mainstream politics works to alienate us from), then politics becomes horse-race stuff for nerds.
Holy shit. How did people ever get it in their heads that drone strikes are not military incursions? Is it because there’s no humans physically entering the territory? Would you think the same thing if we were lobbing artillery shells over the border?
And how would doing either of those things without the cooperation of the Mexican government be anything other than an act of war?
I mean, I get that there is a difference between sending an armored column to occupy Juarez and a drone strike, and it’s not clear from the title which one we’re talking about, but you can’t really dispute that either of those things would be an act of war under any meaningful definition.
It’s an insane thing to say, regardless, because if you know anything about US Mexico relations you know he’s not talking about some kind of cooperative anti-cartel police action. He is in fact talking about an act of war. And a particularly stupid one at that.
The excuse being used is cartels. But it is ultimately an invasion to force mexico into privatisation of various resources and inflict american will on them.
Yeah right, and when Trump talked about the "bad hombres" coming over the border and bringing crime with them he was totally just talking about the bad Mexicans. This totally isn't just another American candidate for the presidency stoking racial hatred to garner votes from people who believe these things.