Recent comments in /f/worldnews

Uptown-Dog t1_ja9lzw3 wrote

If you want to get a better understanding of just how massively and systematically evil France is when it comes to neocolonialism and their exploitation of their ex colonies, this video - France secretly owns 14 countries - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-u1Pjce4Lg

To the coward who posted a bullshit link that supposedly refutes what I said but then blocked me so I couldn't respond, you're so transparent it's utterly ridiculous. Oh, and I posted a response to their rubbish "takedown" (that is just long and wrong) of the video . The underlying thesis of the video is absolutely accurate: neocolonialism is 100% a thing and completely invisible to 99% of everyone in first world nations. Doesn't mean it's not a bone in the throat of every third world nation, and utterly indefensible.

−8

honeybadger1984 t1_ja9lpat wrote

Those aren’t real numbers. Like people who pay for bots to upvote and give fake views to videos.

They’ll be lucky to find 50,000 quality male soldiers or hunters in that group. Conscripts are going to fold and rout at the first sign of trouble. So I wonder how this propaganda is supposed to work.

1

acebandaged t1_ja9lftd wrote

I mean, with that approach there are 15 other countries with higher per cap emissions. This shouldn't be a whatabout issue, this should be a "yes, what china's doing sucks and should stop" issue.

US emissions are also a problem, yes. Now, back to China, which is the topic at hand.

−3

hamsamith t1_ja9kwy3 wrote

I will fully admit to not reading the article and will also admit to genuinely not caring about this woman in any way. The climate is fucked and quite honestly I can't care any more. Do what you gotta do, but don't be surprised at people using this against you when it comes. Nuance means nothing to those who are your enemies.

−9

Riff316 t1_ja9k9nz wrote

This one isn’t even hard to think of with nuance. It’s actually right in line with what Thunberg usually espouses: Protect the environment. Usually renewable energy sources are a means to that end. In this particular instance, this particular renewable effort doesn’t achieve that goal, so don’t do it. Unfortunately, people like u/hamsamith will attempt to use it as a gotcha, without realizing that it both undermines their empty efforts at “discourse” (by showing that they don’t read the sources and don’t fully understand the issue) and strengthens Thunberg’s position by showing that she is nuanced in her message and efforts by actually considering the people and environments that renewables affect directly.

−3