@k9_lilian@Uyghur_Report 1. Appeal to history
2. Whataboutism
3. Unchecked discretion/abuse of power
4. Just false on two counts. China isn’t secular, it’s atheist. Demanding how others dress isn’t a legitimate “custom” that Muslims need to respect. demanding women wear Burqa isnt either.
5. Irrelevant.
@hashimiyy_ In the paradox, there must be a tolerated activity, and its inverse. For example, tolerated speech is inverted by those who use their free speech to advocate for restricted speech. Unlimited Tolerated political participation allows for parties that want to abolish all others, etc
@VergenceS@BillTheKid1603 Being anti-immigration absolutely has rational basis. In fact, being the most extreme remigration advocate is rational. Even if you believe your country is a civic nation which could one day be majority non-white, and believe anything else is irrational and tribe based.
@VergenceS@BillTheKid1603 It’s not oppression to restrict immigration. If anything, restricting immigration and promoting limited remigration would literally create an unprecedented opportunity to push left-wing foreign policy, as well as regulate the way in which locally based MNCs extract resources.
@ObcnSuperMatt@MartinSauerbrey Not true of advanced (advanced in terms of how long they’ve had power) socialist states. Socialist regimes are typically threatened by militaries which for obvious reasons carried over from the old system and thus genuinely do continue to harbor reactionaries.
@fimbres_paul@TheBurdflu@BulembuSwazi@omgsidewalks I don’t think it was ever claimed that anyone was asking for anything but communism in this context. Rather, they literally specified that only in the case of a possessionless form of communism (which has never been seriously proposed ever to my awareness), would this happen.
@CujoCopy@Lavader_ And this can be seen in each of the nations spawned since. The only exception are highly decentralized nation-states that where only a unique set of circumstances allow them to create a system carefully balancing ethnic identities, and even that hangs in the balance.
@CujoCopy@Lavader_ First of all, your entire comment becomes contradictory as one reads further, but even its initial claim is just demonstrably false. Look at the prototypical nation of citizens. What happened to Breton and the Celts? The Basque? The Germans of Alsace Lorraine? And many others?
@TaxEvadinDemSoc@585Zebo@SouthShoreBhoy@AnnoyingLibtard@LiberalHegemony even THEN, this version of Zion/Israel would be amongst like the top 10-20 worst countries for ethnocracy, and my view that it’d generally be tolerable is still a pretty right wing view. But in practice Zionism has been much worse, from the get go, so yeah.
@TaxEvadinDemSoc@585Zebo@SouthShoreBhoy@AnnoyingLibtard@LiberalHegemony Such as excluding non-Jews from self determination, offering special immigration and citizenship tracks to Jews, creating a Jewish national identity, that would have been fine, and I guess in this purely academic exercise of Zionism, I’d see Zionism as acceptable somewhat.