[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Sure, but capitalism with a Fuehrer that has a lifelong seat at the head of government and portrays himself in Riefenstahl like images surely qualifies as fascism, no?

[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

So you are saying that there is a fine line between fascism and capitalism, yes? What would that line be? And why would we chose capitalism over fascism?

[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

The inequality in Russia is absurd. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it the country has clearly become the textbook capitalist country in the world. Tell me, what are the great left wing achievements it has made? Putin on a horse?

[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

Putin's Russia is not fascist in what sense?

[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

Buddy, you are defending a clearly fascist state here.

[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

Russia started when they invaded the Krim. All of Europe shrugged their shoulders because of cheap gas..... Russia is quite clearly a fascist state so I really do not understand your apologies for it. It's probably the only state that is more capitalist than the US, so why defending it?

[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago)

There is a difference between people advocating for human rights abuses and people saying that some actor does in fact not engage in human rights abuses. The difference is stark and even there, if the actor would in fact in engage in human right abuses.

An open society must tolerate the later. I.e. we must tolerate that people dispute that human right abuses occur or occurred. This is because you cannot judge someone purely due to getting the facts wrong or not knowing them.

If we wouldn't allow this, we would de-facto argue for a totalitarian state, since we wouldn't allow people disputing facts (which can be proven or disproven). We would have to nominate some entity that judges what is fact and what isn't, which is the opposite to gathering evidence and engaging in an open, society wide discussion.

To be clear: Allowing discussions around whether abuses occur is notably different to letting people get away with advocating for abuses. The latter is what needs strong responses. The former is what requires engagement.

I don't see anything on lemmy or in the mastodon thread that shows that human rights abuses are advocated for. What I do see is that there are some fractions that show sympathies to China which you would otherwise only see for the USA. I think its useful to compare these sympathies because they seem to express themselves in similar ways.

With all that said, I think the opinion expressed in the mastodon thread is not particularly useful. It, in many ways, minimises real human rights abuses that occur world wide, day to day, in China, USA, and many other countries in East and West.

Let's call out the abuses, let's discuss and present the evidence for them, let's not alienate people and create polarity that looks like us-vs-them.

0
submitted 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago) by jazzfes@lemmy.ml to c/chess@lemmy.ml

"Most “free” websites subsist by selling ads or selling user data. Others do it by putting all the good stuff behind paywalls. Lichess doesn’t do any of that and never will. Almost 6 years ago, Lichess founder Thibault explained why Lichess is free - and what that means. A lot can change in 6 years but this is one thing that hasn't and never will.

This is our unbreakable promise to you, our users:

Lichess will never have ads.
Lichess will never sell our user’s data.
Lichess will always be 100% free of charge.

"

[-] jazzfes@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 years ago

HTPC

I haven't bought a monitor / TV in probably 8 years but was recently thinking about it.... however really disliked that pretty much all TVs today are Smart TVs which actually made me wonder:

When selecting the monitor, what do you need to check when you want one that will work well for sports / soccer?

jazzfes

joined 4 years ago