this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
374 points (100.0% liked)

196

667 readers
65 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 3 days ago

You got me. Vivat Roma!

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

anti imperialist/colonial supporters when they find out that the entire timeline of human history is conquest, colonialism, and imperialism.

[–] theoneIno@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago (13 children)

the ones who prospered were the most aggressive ones, even conquering the whole world by force, it's a survivorship bias situation.

not every group of humans is aggressive, but those eventually get conquered by the agressive ones, military power always ends up winning.

It's unscientific to say that any country, given the chance, would do the same as the europeans or the US empire did to the world.

At least the Chinese century will prove or disprove this theory, given it's the first significant power shift in the last 500 years, let's see if they will be so brutal as the US and its allies (you know who) are to the world.

I firmly doubt it, there are no signs of brutality to other nations coming from the chinese, at most you could argue of some internal issues. There are no invasions, war or regime change operations done by China yet.

As someone from the global south, I don't fear China or even Russia in the least, I only fear what the US or Europe will try to inflict in my country, like the recent regime change operations that I lived through, that was pretty harsh.

[–] Umbrias 2 points 2 days ago

the "always conquered" thing, this is a fatalism only justified by it being what happened, not what always must happen. this is an incredibly important distinction.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›