Just that. Someone uploaded this photo of Zelensky allegedly taking a selfie in Kupiansk, which is supposed to be a city already taken by Russian forces. I am not really informed of the situation in Kupiansk, but this is not the issue for me.

In the Politics subreddit, where this was published, the comments are overwhelmingly pro Ukraine, which, well, checks out. But what I find kind of trollish, are the comments surrounding Zelenksy. It’s like reading the five-star comments of the Google Play Services app in the Play Store, or something. They repeatedly talk about how big and glorious are Zelensky’s balls? Praising his balls, even though, he is a smaller guy? They praise the bold actions of Zelensky calling him a European hero, imagining his heroic dialogues as in some cheap hollywood movie, etc. To me, it just feels utterly fake? I mean, AI fake.

What do you make of this, guys? Please, remember, it’s not about the conflict itself.

    • Saapas@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m not seeing anything in that article saying she isn’t Uyghur. It mentions that she has a degree from Xinjiang University which is located in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

      I think you could better word your post to reflect that you’re suspicious about her claims for who she has worked for instead of her being Uyghur, if I understood correctly what’s happening

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Uyghur or not, she was lying for US empire. Previously:

        The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.

        The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same mapimperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.

        Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves.
        https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330 #HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.

        See also, Citations Needed podcast:

        • US Meddling, the Limits of ‘Agency’ Discourse and How Media Chooses Which ‘Voices’ To Center

          In this episode, we discuss the uses and misuses of liberal standpoint theory to promote US meddling, sanctions, and bombing. With guest Vincent Bevins.

          “Tony Blair says world must listen to Iraqi exiles,” reads a 2003 New York Times subheadline. ‘I Want To Get The Hell Out Of Here’: Thousands Of Palestinians Are Leaving Gaza,” NPR told readers in 2019. “Will Iran’s hated regime implode?,” The Economist wondered earlier this year, in June 2025.

          In recent decades, when the US, or one of its client states, has sought to invade, bomb, occupy, or otherwise destabilize and destroy a country and its people, media and policymakers who support these aims––which is to say the vast majority––have employed ad hoc liberal standpoint theory to frame these efforts as in support of “the people” of said country, insisting that we listen to those people–whose platonic voice, we are told, share the US security state’s desire for regime change, sanctions, bombings and/or meddling.

          Whether in Vietnam, Iraq, Bolivia, Gaza, or Iran, we’re told this “Platonic Voice of the People” not only objects to their government’s policies, but supports, either implicitly or explicitly, aggressive US intervention.

        • The Human Rights Concern Troll Industrial Complex

          The conceit that the U.S. has been a dedicated and earnest promoter of “freedom”, “democracy,” and “human rights” throughout the world — even if, at times, a “flawed” one — is a defining narrative, largely taken for granted by major media. But how accurate is this assumption? What do we mean when we talk about human rights? What abuses are highlighted and which aren’t? Where do labor rights fit into the broader discussion of human rights?