Nothing new here… The daily dose of negative Eu propaganda from Yoghtos projecting apocalypse but in reality just their psyops…
deleted by creator
Imagine someone doing the same on /c/china, constantly posting right-wing BS articles and spreading manipulative falsehoods. They would have been either banned a long time ago or the lemmygrad hivemind would be up in arms trying to get them kicked off the platform.
Just blocking someone individually is not sufficient to deal with this.
deleted by creator
Indeed this specific article is only a very low quality (in fact auto-translated?) article that omits nearly all the facts that are necessary to understand these protests. Given the context of their other recent posts (and later replies), it was clear that the OP also does not understand the background of these specific protests and hence I linked an article that does explain it better in the hope that they would be willing to read and understand.
Since you claim to understand the background, why don’t you post better articles covering these types of protests happening all over Europe?
I actually appreciate the article you linked, I think it was a good article, I entirely agree with the points it makes. What stopped you from posting that article here. If I didn’t post the article I did, I would’ve never seen your article.
Because you failing to understand that there aren’t “these types of protests all over Europe” is exactly the problem.
There are protests in France, Spain, Italy, Czechia, Germany, Netherlands, and lots of other countries last I checked. All of these protests are rooted in collapsing standards of living and economic strife that people are experiencing. This is all rooted in the economic war the west is waging with Russia, this is the basic fact that you refuse to acknowledge.
I still remember that one time you sent me an article to correct my “right wing bs” that literally made the points I make. Then you claimed that I omitted some context discussing the article and slinked away when asked what it is I omitted. Totally acting in good faith here buddy.
The problem is that you apparently always only read what you want to hear and not what is actually written in the article, and no matter how many times I repeat that you should read the article and stick to the facts you always continue with the same BS and/or try to change the subject when it is clear that you lost the argument. Obviously I will not have endless discussions with you when you always conveniently change the topic when your are losing the argument or are just trying to get the last word in like some spoilt child.
The problem is that you never address my point, and never make any coherent counterpoints of your own. You just keep repeating that I should read the article that I entirely agree with and that makes the exact same point I’m making. Then when I point that out, you start claiming that I omitted some context. What context did I omit, what of my points are you disputing. The only spoilt child here is you, and everyone here sees it.
No the problem is that you always (intentionally?) fail to understand my point as you are arguing against some pro-NATO strawman that only exist in your head and when the argument doesn’t follow that pre-scripted line of thought you try to change the subject.
You should really start practising to understand what you are reading, because apparently you have extreme confirmation bias and just selectively pick the parts you like from an article and discard the rest.
Sounds to me like you’re projecting here.
Blocking is just one of the many tools, and of course it’s just the last resort.
You could create or engage in community discussions about rules for the community - like what kind of content is wanted, what kind of posts are people interested in, and what guidelines could make posts better.
Within these rules, you can vote on a given post to mark a post as particularly fitting or interesting for the community (vote a post up), or unfitting or off-topic (vote down).
If these tools don’t work well enough in some cases for you, then the last reasonable option is to block the user. There’s nothing wrong with doing that.
I recommend you to educate yourself a bit about these protests. I hope this article is from a source you are willing to learn from?
What part specifically do you think I should educate myself on in that article? It’s obvious that capitalist mode of production is the root cause of the contradiction here. However, last I checked there is no plan for Netherlands to transition away from capitalism which means the contradictions will continue to sharpen going forward.
Europe is capitalist and as the capitalist system continues to fail it will translate into anger leading to civil unrest which we’re seeing. The right is currently capitalizing on this crisis because there is no effective left in most European countries.
In fact, the article you linked says the exact same thing I’m saying:
The main problem is that there is no working-class alternative to the Rutte government. The old Labour Party is looking to fuse with the left-liberal Green Left, which clearly shows how weak they have become after decades of co-managing austerity. The left-reformist Socialist Party has bureaucratically expelled most of its remaining left wing and has degenerated into a chauvinist party which wants to attract voters from the far-right by copying their anti-immigration positions, and thus attracts neither the advanced working class nor radical youth.
You are quoting very selectively again here ;)
Oh, do elaborate on what relevant context this quote misses.
Well, despite your confrontative and manipulative discussion style, I hope you learned something from the article linked. But it is clear that discussing these things rationally is not possible with you.
To sum up, you’ve ignored everything I said, claimed that I omitted some context in the quote, but won’t say what it is. And then you bail claiming that it is I who is not capable of discussing things rationally. Gotcha.
This is not an answer to their question
Read the article that I linked. It includes a lot more details and background than that single selective quote conveys. Do you want me to repeat the entire article here?
Good God, use as many quotes as you need! If you really care about rational discourse so much then actually lay out your argument in detail, don’t try to weasel out of it without engaging with the question.
