Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
The DM was a DM asking us to change our no tankies policy and remove the fuck tankies banner as it was apparently upsetting hexbear users. Apparently tankies view the word tankie as a form of slur. The admin wants us to ally as a form of "left solidarity"
I don't understand your first point. Are you suggesting the ghengis khan's conquest was informed by "euro-centric" learnings or influence? I'll need a source on that.
Re the second point I wasn't claiming anyone was or wasn't human, I was indicating that expansionist conquest occured in an era of expansionist conquest. A trait not solely owned by Europeans/Americans. China has a massive history of conflict along ethnic and tribal lines, and a massive history of conquest too.
Conquest, war and "dehumanization" is evidenced by their borders, everyone's borders, everywhere. Throughout history.
No one is clean, and no one is a hero.
The post was very clearly saying that Ghengis Khan and the post-Mongolian Chinese state is a worse form of conquest and murder because they were conquering and killing their own people.
But the US was killing Native Americans which weren't citizens, so it is not as bad as killing your own people like the Mongolian/Chinese/Mao.
Uh, ghengis Khan certainly killed a lot of non mongols. He pretty strongly justified the conquest on such terms. (that, and loyalty/fealty). Many leaders through time did.
All that said, consider football. A point is a point, but an own goal stings worse. Not because the opposing players are subhuman, but you were supposed to do best by your own.