You are not though. That’s the point. You are making up bullshit to pretend you are to use “pointing out racism” as a moral shield. Pathetic, in fact.

You are trying to fabricate sympathy for Russians in a post where nobody is attacking them (as russians), about Ukraine military aid. You know what you are doing, you can make the paraculo as much as you want.

I can try all the atlas. It’s not a matter of which country. I am contesting the principle.

No.

Lemmy is also filled with a lot of stuff. Not a reason to bring it up in random out-of-context conversations.

Go preach to people who do that. Here you were just trying to throw shade at Ukrainians. “See, everyone is bad?!”

In fact it’s not racist even in that case.

Stating a fact can’t be racist, even if the meaning is that people were being shot due to their nationality. Nice gotcha, I have used like 3 times examples with Italians to show that this has nothing to do with racism. “You need to use their country to make them realize!”. (Also, this reeks of E ALLORA LE FOIBEE!?!?!)

Do you want to claim that Ukrainians are ethnically cleansing Russians? Do that. Provide your argument and do that. Don’t go bust the balls of people who say sentences that have nothing to do with that, that clearly don’t advocate for that or celebrate that.

Dude, I live in Estonia for 10 years, in a russian-speaking district. Unlike you, I understand russophobia. This conversation is completely out of place in the context of OP statement. You are trying to discuss stuff that is completely irrelevant to what OP said. You are here to stir shit, to make the moral about russophobia in a post where nothing like that was present. Again, if you didn’t purposefully try to misinterpret OP’s sentence, you would understand that in the context the sentence was clearly meant for Russian soldiers part of an invading force, and hating and shooting them has nothing to do with Russophobia. Please, give me a sign you understand this basic concept.

Ci fai o ci sei?

If someone said “in Afghanistan they were shooting Italians on the spot” I wouldn’t find it discriminatory, because I am not an idiot, and I can immediately understand that they refer to the people who went there as a foreign army, not to random Italians.

It’s so ridiculous that you are still here arguing about this, and you know why? Because you could have made the same argument about Ukrainians. OP said that Ukrainians are shooting Russians on the spot. Do you think OP meant that all Ukrainians are shooting all Russians? Do you think he meant that 2 yo Ukrainians, take out the pacifier to shoot the random Russian person who works at the local shop and is there for 20 years? Or maybe the obvious message was that Ukrainian army is shooting Russians (in the invading army) on the spot?

No no, let’s go and divert attention on a useless conversation for a sentence that was obvious even to rocks.

In any case, do you understand that stating a fact is not discriminatory? OP didn’t say “I hope they kill every Russian”, he they said “they are shooting”, which can’t be discriminatory if it’s a fact. Reality is not discriminatory. At most it could be false.

No shit, so you do understand that if someone said the sentence quoted in the context of resistance, every person with a pulse will understand “they are shooting German troops soldiers or the Nazi” and not “every person with a German passport, who spoke German, etc.”?

Because you are being that obtuse person that would point out how that is a “racist discrimination” and that there were Germans living in Italy at the time. We all know why you are doing it, I keep answering just for fun. I know it, you know it, we are all discussing about nothing, because you know very well what OP meant, if nothing else because I know that Italian public education is at least decent and you know at least how to read.

you aware that there are russian people

Some of them are getting shot. The ones belonging to an army who is invading. The random resident who immigrated is not being shot

How a statement such as “they are shooting Russians on the spot” discriminatory? It’s a statement, not even a call to do that. Stop embarrassing yourself, take the L and just close this post, PD.

I am not new, but I have a skill that you might find useful, it’s called “context”.

racist generalization in comment?

Because there is no any racial generalization. From the context it was clear to anybody who is in good faith what OP meant. Even if it wasn’t, OP comment was a statement on what is happening, so your remark “I hope they don’t…” doesn’t make any fucking sense, because you can just check what they are doing. Currently Russians in Ukraine that are being shot are invading troops.

So let’s make a parallel. “Partisans were shooting germans”, in the context of Italian resistance. Do you think it’s a racist remark? Would you feel the need to say " oh boy, I hope they don’t shoot German civilians", “oh, there are ethnical Germans in the north, I hope they are not shooting them”. No you wouldn’t, because what you are doing is not in good faith, you are not raising any valid concern, you are just purposefully misunderstanding OP to stir shit.

I saw you around, and I know also you are Italian, so I will tell you in a way you understand. You are being a “puntalcazzista” to throw shade on Ukraine with vague racism claims. Anybody with a pulse will understand that “shooting every Russian on the spot” means “shooting every invader”, and that roughly would include also north Koreans or other ethnicities, should those set foot in Ukraine to assist Russian invasion. You are trying to claim an interpretation that doesn’t make sense, because - as I told you and you can easily verify - the Ukrainian army itself is full of Russian speaking people, who you might call “ethnic Russian” - whatever you think that means. So unless you are honestly suggesting that OP was suggesting Ukrainian army is also shooting on the spot to members of its own army, we both know what you are doing.

Only the Russian imperial narrative is so that Russians speaking people are considered Russians. There are Russian speaking people in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and in many -Stans, they are not Russians.

Not a very useful remark. The Ukrainian army is full of Russians speaking people.

I already mentioned why atlantism is a position ad a result of anticommunism. We are going in cirlces I guess.

Interesting, I guess it’s hard for me to know the viewpoint of other countries that are not so much in the spotlight (no offense, of course). I know close to 0 about Denmark’s relationship with US, for example.

And that’s where I disagree. Playing by the rules has nothing to do with not having values. MSI had ideology, their founders came directly from RSI and never renegaded the fascist regime, and Fini - who “evolved” the right wing - is seen as a traitor by those in Almirante’s school because he did renegade fascism (at least, formally). Meloni’s party could have turned populist and pursue more favorable positions, and instead she stuck with her shitty ideas despite having minimal consensus early on.

If tomorrow international press were to start shitting on the church this person would do a 360 and change their views like mussolini did with lateran treaty

I don’t think so at all. It’s a speculation of course. Which to me makes it worse, because the idea of Christianity she has (conservative, strict gender roles, strong “moral” values, etc.) survives the relationship with the church itself, even if this one should evolve (unlikely). Take for example abortion. Abortion has wide support among Italian population. Despite this, she still sticks with her reactionary position, because this is descending from those core values. Look instead Salvini’s relationship with religion to see what an ideological whore looks like…

By the way, you are talking about Mussolini’s evolution, but that was before he founded fascism, and anyway his Later treaties were a perfect political instrument to gain power. Deschner in “Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums” (Criminal history of Christianity) covers the whole timeline quite in depth, and if it was not for the church support he wouldn’t have managed to pass the “leggi fascistissime” (including the electoral reform) which ultimately lead him to take full power, via the alienation of Sturzo.

So once again, Mussolini’s relationship with the church is debatable and mostly functional to him pursuing his power grab. For sure there are strong overlaps with traditional christian morality and fascism, but I see these as more part of the strategy to form a strong identity around which to build nationalism.

This person got elected campaigning against EU and is now captaining a EU summit.

And that’s what I said. Completely expected. And her position about EU will change again depending on what happens in Europe. Right now she is still trying to reconcile EU and US.

The current government is a coalition between meloni, salvini and berlusconi party.

That’s also what I said. Government coalitions, especially in Italy, are not expressive of any particular ideology. Also not Berlusconi’s party anymore, thankfully, since he is feeding worms.

What I want to say is that Meloni has some core values. These values are essentially the same that were for MSI, and those were the same that were for the PNF. Other positions are subordinated to those values, which means that her position about Europe, but also her atlantism change over time, depending on what serves best those core values. Atlantism for example sounds extremely contradictory for a nationalist party which, during fascism, preached autarchy. So, did they change? No, not really. Atlantism is essentially a byproduct of anticommunism since the cold war era. Likewise, EU position change depending if that is more functional to push nationalism (I.e., Netherlands and Germany want to strangle Italy - nationalism) or other stuff.

The biggest difference is that people like Salvini were born politically as communists, joined the Lega Nord preaching independence of Padania within a party that literally wiped their ass with Italian flag, then moved to become nationalist populistic party once he took the lead. What are Salvini’s core political values? None. Meloni is a much more serious politician, which makes her much more dangerous, because she does have an ideology, and she does what is functional to push that ideology. Saying that fascists don’t have ideas is - IMHO - straight up dangerous, because it gives the idea that they are not serious about what they do, and if the wind changes, they will also change. Meloni so far didn’t change since she had a party with 3-4% and played Berlusconi’s crutch until now.

It was a fair shout, if anything because it is (for obvious reasons) a fairly unknown part of history. I remember my grandma telling me stories of vacationing in Tripoli when she was a kid, and her brother playing football (in the national team, according to her, will never know).

Ironically the idea of “protectorate” is still somewhat alive, which is funny because in another thread in this post I am discussing about how Italian fascism does have ideas (vs being opportunistic).

It’s Giorgia

And she is a mother [cit.]

Yes, I am aware. Despite the cruelty (especially in Eritrea) it was a parody of a colonial power, and I wouldn’t call it an empire.