this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
208 points (94.8% liked)
Ukraine
9928 readers
393 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, in my mind, Holodomor is not a gray area at all, even though I've seen my share of pro-Putin people from the West. One of the first encounters I remember was back on Diaspora. Funnily in relation to this ban, I've done a lot of research into neo-Nazism, but probably not enough into those Hexbear type views.
Just lurk more political comms there (and grad) and you'll get an idea pretty quickly.
Nah, it's pretty simple, America bad, tell me what else to repeat, RT!
Even the Wikipedia page is unsure, how are you so sure?
Wikipedia is not uniform. An article is as good as the active users behind it and the sources that support the claims. Still, on its actual page on whether Holodomor is a genocide, the summary is that it was real and had millions of victims, that most scholars at least hold Stalin responsible for it, that the EU and 34 other countries have recognized it as a genocide, and that even the person who coined the term "genocide" is of the same opinion. Simply put, it feels as though Wikipedia is trying to play two sides without really committing or succeeding in being convincing about it not being more or less clearcut