Legalised porn in 1969, all of it. I was actually off by a decade, distribution of child porn was legal in (and from) Denmark from '69 to '84

Did you know Denmark was the main producer of CSAM for about half a decade?

Speaking on the holodomor it might also be worth putting focus on the fact Ukraine wasn’t even the hardest hit region, it’s only due to western propaganda it gets treated as some unique Ukrainian tragedy.

“Holodomor” - oh, so youre a nazi trying to do double genocide in order to belittle the Holocaust? Fucked up.

Sad you got downvoted for asking a completely fair question. Its naive to pretend that who wield a lot of capital do not have more influence than the average citizen. China isn’t perfect and it does have an issue with liberals here and there - at least from my very limited knowledge.
I would also like to know how the Billionaires of China can be said to exert no more influence than the average citizen, beyond just a vague gesture to the fact that sometimes a Billionaire will be arrested - presumably if they go too far or get too bold. Thats what I would assume anyway, so I’d love to actually know.

Incredibly racist of you to reduce the Soviet Union to “Russians”. Incredibly stupid of you to read “they built a bunch of infrastructure” to mean “there was absolutely nothing there before.”
Honestly that’s so stupid I have to assume you’re just someone acting obtuse, so I won’t waste more time in you.

Hey, you’re the one who started this by acting like a snivelling little baby and you then tried to take it to a discussion of personal characteristics. I guess don’t do that if you dont like the consequences of doing that?

Sure buddy, the massive amount of infrastructure constructed by the Soviets existed before they were there and aliens built the pyramids

I do think treating you like dirt makes my experience here better, but I’m not really worried about presenting myself in the most optimal way for some randos on a niche internet forum, but if you are then you should probably recitfy your behavior, you are pretty insufferable.

Yeah, its almost like Im aware of that and thus behave differently? Wow! What a concept! Behaving differently depending on the social context in which one finds themselves! Wow!

Classic, act like a dickhead, get treated in kind and then retreat to cry about civility. You’re like an ill-behaved child.

You definitely have poor understanding of how to get others to follow your opinions, I mean your username please!

Lmao. Sad that you approach every interaction with the mindset of convincing the other. Even sadder that you suck so much at it you dont understand how convincing others function in a public forum.

Pol is about getting others to follow you if you can’t even fathom that you might as well be an angry vegan with no friends.

Weird non-sequitor. Incidentally I’ve met way less insufferable vegans than I’ve met insufferable people who complain about vegans.

groups usually cancel bias

Lmao, so we’re just saying shit now, alright. Famously unbiased:

• The police
• Lynch mobs
• Academic institutions
• Think tanks
• The KKK
• The Clergy
• A group of children

I think you struggle to understand what the word “bias” means. It seems like it just short-circuits in your brain to “bad”. A group typically enforce the bias inherent to it.

It requires actively being aware of ones’ bias to counteract it, which is one of many reasons why Wikipedias presentation as a “neutral” source of knowledge is an issue. Because it makes doofuses like you trust it like gospel and react like fanatics to the heresy that maybe the website founded by a zionist, with a longtime issue with power-users (not to mention the infiltration of Nazis that gets brought up once in a while in a feelgood story about someone taking them on), a rule against being critical of "approved sources investegation making use of primary sources, an arbitrary approach as to how trustworthy a source is (the main judgement of which seems to be “do they reinforce state dept. talking points?”); well, it might have some issues.

Wow! Its almost like the argument that voting for democrats results in anything meaningfully different from voting for republicans rests on a faulty premise! And its almost as if the logic underlying the argument that a vote for democrats is in any way meaningful demands the conclusion that a vote for a third party would then be more meaningful, but the whole argument itself rests on the faulty assumption that the USA is a democracy, when it actually is a capitalist oligarchy, wherein the two prominent political parties do the same horrible shit! And they maintain a grasp on power and a propensity for doing horrible shit no matter how you vote! Wow! Wish someone would have said that! Wow!

Anyway tell me you have a toddlers grasp on politics and the memory of a goldfish without telling me: [write whatever you wrote and then whatever your response to this will be]

I hate to speak up for the inhabitants of the great satan, but dont you think this is all too similar rhetoric to that of libs about Russians? Real calipers moment.

“Wow people generally seem to speak very positively of Brendan Fraser. This must be because he’s secretly evil and they just wont admit it!”

Maybe there’s a lot of positive talk about China and not a lot of critique because China, in general, does a whole lot of good and not a lot of bad.

Or because the users here don’t exist separated from the world in which they exist. That world, for most of them, is one where every miniscule thing China has done (and hasnt done, as this thread shows) gets relentlessly critiqued in the mainstream all the time, so the users here might not feel a need to add to that.

Or, to be honest, since I feel like I’ve been a bit too hostile to you, there is also a bunch of lemmy/hexbear/lemmygrad/etc users who reflexively shout at anyone saying anything that goes against their beliefs, because every forum and instance has a massive issue with people assuming they are “the one true ideologue” so that means they don’t have to investigate their own beliefs when they get challenged, instead it just means the challenger is a bad person - In the case of dumbasses speaking about bullshit they dont know and then doubling down that’s true though. Or not “bad” but definitely “shitty”.

Its not at all, as has been briefly and accesibly argued. If you disagree present why the arguments presented are unsound.
Just going “actually it is” when there’s several comments detailing why it isn’t and not addressing any of their points, just makes you (and your position) appear ridiculous.

Fair point.

It was horrible! Hordes of communists tearing through the country, leaving hospitals and schools whereever they went!

Make no mistake buddy, I don’t owe you shit.

Wowww you sound really tough! And cool!

not terminally online

Yeah you seem like a real grass-touching type, throwing a fit over being corrected.