One thing about which fish know exactly nothing is water, since they have no anti-environment which would enable them to perceive the element they live in.
Marshall McLuhan, War and Peace in the Global Village
It’s a metaphor. Hopefully this helps clarify things.
The version from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” commencement speech at Kenyon College:
There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?”
And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?“
The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.
ideologies may function as prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threat, and maintain valued interpersonal relationships. … such motives may lead disproportionately to the adoption of system-justifying worldviews. Psychologists generally agree that personality traits, individual difference variables, needs, and ideological beliefs seem to have something in common.
so in this sense memes are like little atoms of ideology aka “prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world”
Wouldn’t the Bernie Sanders “I’m once again asking for your support” fall into that category? I’ve seen it used for lolz in all sorts of topics that had nothing to do with politics. Same for any other memes featuring political figures
I remember Obama granting himself the Hero of the Soviet Union medal and pinning it to himself using a satanic portal. I think. I’m pretty sure. Or so I’ve heard at least.
one thing amazes me for sure: there is still bunch of people loudly protecting their masters’ right to exploit and rob them.
And they are doing this while are already living in the world destroyed and robbed by capital, where COVID showed how vulnerable and under-financed our healthcare system is, where due to the global competition and sinking profits of corporations countries are building alliances, and preparing a new big imperialistic war for us, where crisis goes after crisis together with high inflation globally, and where quality of life is sinking monthly.
Who gives a fuck what tankies think anyway? That’s like caring about what nazi’s think… If they disagree with you, you’re probably doing something right!
France. We don’t use the word tankie. But the government is calling the social-democrat parties extreme left (often adding dangerous), and often talk about them like equal or worse than the extreme right racist (bordering fascist) party.
This is incredibly inaccurate, Marx talks at length why Social Democracy isn’t enough and merely supports the status quo, preventing the liberation of the Proletariat.
Communists are typically critical of Nordic Social Democracy as they can only exist due to US Military supremacy as a peacemaker (so they don’t have to have a large military budget), and economic Imperialism via corporations like Nestlé exporting shitty working conditions. Even then, they are still seeing increasing disparity.
If you have any knowledge at all from the countries in question or the world in general, you would’ve understood the sarcasm. Now you just prove you have no idea what you are talking about.
Finland has a massive army and Sweden is renowned for its air power. These are not secrets, but well-known facts that even slightly educational people know. Unlike you.
Dude it’s an alliance of western powers. No matter how proud the Nords are of their armies, they are ultimately dependent on the military and financial domination of the US.
Deterrents are not absolute. Also, I don’t know how you’re not aware of this, but it was Ukraine’s announcement they’d be joining NATO that provoked Russia. That doesn’t sound like an alliance preventing war, does it… As I said - deterrents are not absolute. They never are. Police and prison (allegedly) deter crime, for instance.
Eh? What putin says is irrelevant to reality, please stop using him as a source. If you’re about to tell me joining NATO is a reason for wars to break out please make sure it’s real first lmao.
So you’re gonna tell me it’s about the Nazis in Ukraine and you think he’s just going there to liberate them? Yeah right.
EDIT: FFS you got me distracted again. Just like you wanted, I forgot my initial point was just that deterrents aren’t absolute, and alliances do not necessarily deter war - and this is just one example.
Whether Ukraine joining NATO was the actual reason the war broke out, them planning to join NATO didn’t STOP the war, did it?
Again with using putin as a source, what’s wrong with you? :D Anyway, there are some geopolitical analysts you could be interested who have way more credible takes on the issue than you, me or honestly putin. Personally I’m an unapologetic Zeihanist but Fukuyama is another author with great analysis on reality.
Did you read what I said?? I was discrediting that claim you fucking loon.
Okay, I surrender. You are a great troll. You win. You made me mad.
Fukuyama is another author with great analysis on reality
This has to be a joke. Okay, maybe you do know a couple of things, because you can only have included this because you must know I’m aware of the claim of “The End Of History” and how absolutely ludicruous that is.
If you truly think neoliberal capitalism is how humanity is meant to live, and that we wil never and can never progress beyond it, you are hopelessly naive and sheltered.
But, back to the actual point, before I let you distract me again:
them planning to join NATO didn’t STOP the war, did it?
Did you read what I said?? I was discrediting that claim you fucking loon.
Why do you feel the need to specifically discredit putins claims? Alright if it was sarcasm but even that aught to make sense mate
The Fukuyama rant
Aight my boy has not yet learned that an author can make great analysis even if you don’t personally agree with the outcome of his analysis. Once you graduate high school you’ll get used to nuances like that in literature.
them planning to join NATO didn’t STOP the war, did it?
No. Because planning to join doesn’t mean they joined already. Had they joined no war would’ve broken out. Simple as. It’s crazy how reality, out of all things, is the one thing you refuse to believe.
Why do you feel the need to specifically discredit putins claims?
What even is this question?
Aight my boy has not yet learned that an author can make great analysis even if you don’t personally agree with the outcome of his analysis.
I didn’t say anything about his analysis specifically. Just that if “The End Of History” is the kind of stuff you’re interested in, you may be a bit politically naive.
Once you graduate high school you’ll get used to nuances like that in literature.
Puerile.
Had they joined no war would’ve broken out. Simple as.
This is fucking hilarious. They didn’t get the chance to join. Because Putin didn’t want them to. (And also wanted Ukraine but hey ho, an excuse is an excuse)
Sorry let me ask that again, why do you feel the need to specifically discredit putins claims?
Just that if “The End Of History” is the kind of stuff you’re interested in, you may be a bit politically naive.
The analysis in it is interesting. I’m personally a socdem (as you prob already know by now) so no I don’t like him because I think he’s right all the time. What a weird way that’d be to read someone’s analysis lmao. I’ve read marx too. And I laugh at Zeihans predictions on europe. But mostly, I laugh at your attempt at convincing me you read literature.
Puerile.
But true. Explained my thought process more above.
They didn’t get the chance to join.
Doesn’t matter to my point tbh. Friendships don’t help deterrence, only official military alliances do. That is my point and nothing else. putin had no choice but to invade before any NATO stuff come alive, but would’ve invaded with or without any plans of joining.
As I suspected I had been conversing with someone who didn’t even have elementary idea of the geopolitical situation and goals of rus*ia. Except for the things putin says about it, apparently. Please educate yourself on the subject I mentioned prior, Zeihan really is a good and easily understandable source on analysis over it if you want to check it out, even if he’s very memeable.
Ukraine is existential to rus*ia. The invasion was always going to happen, it was just a matter of when.
You’d know this if you’d knew even a little bit of geopolitics over the region. Like literally the tiniest amount of education would’ve saved you all these messages.
Hold on - am I talking to Putin right now? Or just his personal aide?
Am I going to read about a Russian (that’s how you spell it, not Rus*ia) social media secretary being disappeared after embarrassing themselves online?
Who I agree with is irrelevant to reality. Sadly, he never asked my opinion on the invasion. I’m just stating the facts here, facts about reality which does seem like the sticking point with you.
And I don’t spell rus*ia with a capital r, they don’t deserve it.
You seem to think his reasons are valid. Stop dancing around that. You said he “had no choice but to invade”. That means you think he was justified in invading.
He wasn’t.
I also “acknowledge the existence of his reasons” just the same as I “acknowledge the existence” of the reasons a child steals candy. They wanted it. The reason exists, sure, but it doesn’t make it a good or valid one.
That means you think he was justified in invading.
What? :D you literally just quoted me? :D Did I say “I think he had no choice but to invade and I agree with his reasons and the conclusions he came to” or “had no choice but to invade”.
Man, you truly are a tankie. Like a labgrown unfiltered nazi, sorry, tankie.
You literally said he had no choice but to invade. That is, from you, a statement of believed fact. Why are you trying to backpedal, here? This is what you said. You even agree that I quoted you. How can you say “he had no choice but to invade”, and now imply you never claimed to agree?
If you didn’t agree, you’d have said “Putin claimed he had no choice”. But you didn’t. You said, flat out, he had no choice.
You literally said he had no choice but to invade.
I still don’t see the problem with the statement. He really didn’t, rus*ian geopolitic doctrine insists on Ukraine being existential for their country, he had no choice but to invade.
Aw, poor little put upon Putin was so blocked in, he really had no choice but to brutally murder thousands of people for conquest. He had a gun against his head, don’t you see!
Wtf is wrong with you? You don’t think he could have just… NOT FUCKING INVADED?
Not sure if you have challenges in reading or are just pretending to be retarded. Since you are a commie I actually can’t tell if you can’t read or pretend to be retarded for the lulz.
Look it’s hard to put a definite date on it, because capitalism didn’t just happen in one day. It happened over centuries. The european alliance had its roots in the colonial rush for the New World, and later Africa. After squabbling over territories, they learned they could make more money by cooperating and exploiting the poor countries together. And it’s been like that ever since about 1900.
I never said they had no armies, but they both spend much less than the US does as a percentage of GDP.
Again, you can’t actually refute the points I made. Modern Nordic Social Democracy doesn’t actually solve the issues Communists take with Capitalism, it only makes the downsides slightly more bearable. It still relies on economic Imperialism to export shitty labor conditions to developing countries to poach local resources, and still generally relies on the US spending so much more on their military both percentage wise and in total.
Your point that Communists just haven’t discovered Social Democracy is ludicrous, anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading Marx will know about Social Democracy’s issues systemically. Simply batting for the team with the highest standard of living without giving any critical thought as to why these countries have the highest standard of living is primary education level political and economic thought.
I think I’m being trolled here but if you actually don’t know about the concepts of finlandization or Sweden’s neutrality I have no clue how you can keep a straight face lying
Lying? In what way? Is it a lie to say that the US as a peacemaking, Imperialist force with military supremacy and war deterrent has an impact on what other countries spend on their military?
Is it a lie to say that Finland spends less both in total and as a percentage of GDP on their military than the US does?
Is it a lie to say that Nordic countries have companies like Nestlé where the working conditions and environmental damage done to developing countries are massive, yet workers within said Nordic countries are generally treated well?
Is it a lie to say that Marx specifically mentioned the concepts of Social Democracy as insufficient and therefore Communists aren’t just blind people who haven’t discovered magical Capitalism but the government does some stuff yet none of the issues with Capitalism are actually solved?
All in all, you’re painfully unaware of how economics or politics works.
Finland and Sweden do in fact have militaries. They don’t have to spend nearly as much money on them because the US exists as a global deterrent. If the US was not a global deterrent, then Finland and Sweden would have to spend more money on their militaries.
Social Democracy is not when the US spends money on military. Social Democracy is just Capitalism but the government does some stuff, which solves none of the actual problems of Capitalism.
Social Democracy as found in the Nordic Countries only exists because these countries do not have to spend as much on their militaries, and practice economic Imperialism a la Nestlé where these companies practice brutal Imperialism of developing countries.
This isn’t a difficult concept to understand. Yes, Social Democracies are generally better for their own citizens, but are parasitic in nature.
A. The US spends more money and has a much larger military force than Sweden and Finland
B. US presence in the geopolitical space serves as a deterrent against possible aggression against any countries on good terms with the US
C. If a deterrent like the US did not exist, other countries would have to spend more money to continue protecting themselves effectively
D. Just because Finland and Sweden have militaries and neutrality practices does not mean that the US no longer exists as a global peacemaker against aggression towards countries on friendly terms with it
Please tell me which of these is an alternative reality. I can then educate you on why you’re wrong and we can move on.
A: rus*ia spends more money on military, thus making Sweden its protectorate. Finland’s welfare is provided by the philippines who also spend more money on defense (probably, idk, you get my point)
B: like the time US deterred winter war that didnt happen
C: false. Countries like Finland and Sweden have always upheld militaries to protect themselves, alone, like we have done. Alone. Without US help despite relations, since neutrality is a thing. Look it up
D: god I wish, that would have meant my grandfather wouldnt have had to evacuate from karelia as a little boy while communists were raining arty on the train he managed to get himself into while his father stayed, fought and died. But actually US spent more money on military so it didnt happen. Actually no wars have been fought in countries allied with the US.
So you can’t actually challenge the premise of anything I’ve said, you just say “you’re wrong” then mald.
A. The US is on friendlier terms with Sweden and Finland and serves as a peacemaker. You didn’t challenge this, you added unrelated bullshit.
B. Not an actual challenge, US presence is a dominant force in the world of geopolitics, and denial of that is delusional.
C. No, not false. The fact that Finland and Sweden have militaries doesn’t mean US presence isn’t a deterrent against conflict. You have a child’s understanding of geopolitics and the role of NATO.
D. Again, not what I said, so again, not a challenge.
You’re delusional and have a child’s understanding of geopolitics.
If you think any flavour of socialist “just hasn’t discovered social democracy”, then no, you don’t know what socialism is. Any socialist already knows about it, and probably believed in it once, but moved past it after learning that it’s insufficient.
Uh, I think you dont know what socialism is. Read up on it. This comment tree is not about it anyway so please start another one if you want to discuss socialism. Or at least make sure you
WTF exactly do you think socialism is, if you think it’s off topic?
You mentioned tankies. Tankie is a pejorative for Marxism-Leninism, a form of socialism.
You mentioned communism. Communism is a form of socialism.
You mentioned social democracy - a concept many ignorant people confuse with socialism.
You also intimated that MLs simply “haven’t discovered social democracy” - a statement that can only be said by someone who thinks social democracy is “socialism done right”.
Fascinating how the guys most enthusiastic about communism and socialism have the least clue on what it is. Please, educate yourself, they are quite simple ideas, which is why they are the ideology of the uneducated and violent
No, i asked you to explain what communism is. Not describe how you view it.
What are its axioms, what do its supporters believe? What is its goal, and what methods does it promote to achieve them?
What does it oppose? What are its philosophical bases? What is its praxis? Who are some influential thinkers in the field, and what theories did they add?
Hell, here’s an even easier one: can you even name a single communist philosopher?
Please it is not my job to educate you. And for these surface level discussions (well, socialism is surface level) you ought to just read the wiki page on it.
Literally take 10 minutes of your day to read it and come back to me after you know what socialism is. Dont even have to apologize me, I’m not like that, I just want to see people get better and flourish.
I already know what it is. I’m waiting for you to prove you do. I’m not asking for my benefit - I’ve spent years deep in socialist theory already. This is why I’m drilling you. Because you’re just saying vague shit that does not hint at any socialist theory at all - just blind hatred of something you never took time to learn about.
Socialism, at its most basic, is workers seizing the means of production; the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie to resolve the class antagonisms inhetent in the capitalist mode of production.
I didn’t want to have to do this, because now you definitely know what socialism is, since I’ve explained it, and you can just pretend you knew all along.
Thank you for finally reading the wiki entry. Now, as you wrote, we can acknowledge how an ideology and the act of approaching the society described by that ideology are different. Like the difference between nazism (ideology) and holocaust (act of approaching an ideology). One is an abstract idea, the other is an act of reality.
Nice try. Like I already told you, I already know what socialism is. That was from my own understanding. :)
Now, as you wrote, we can acknowledge how an ideology and the act of approaching the society described by that ideology are different. Like the difference between nazism (ideology) and holocaust (act of approaching an ideology). One is an abstract idea, the other is an act of reality.
Okay, so you’re just gonna restate my own points back at me and pretend you furthered the discussion.
So OT warning or a new comment tree, thank you!
I’ve already explained, and your participation has already indicated, that this is not off topic.
So, to sum up, you have:
Attempted to insult my intelligence by suggesting I need to do mid conversation googling, after refusing to demonstrate any knowledge on your own part
Refused to add anything of worth to the discussion by simply repeating my own points back at me
Then attempted to flee the discussion altogether
Give me a single reason to take you, or anything you say on this subject, seriously.
You’re only making me more confident in my assumption.
You have to be aware of the facts here. You have shown absolutely zero knowledge on the subject of socialism. The only times you said anything about any of its theories is when you confirmed what I said, and that was only in implication.
The only point you have been clinging to is that this was “off topic”, when we were clearly talking about socialism from the beginning.
In any case, my point has evidently been proven - you know nothing about socialism and have no business speaking on the subject with such ignorance. Educate yourself before making an ass of yourself online again.
Bruh like I said in the beginning, you are OT. You learned along the way what you are talking about, I’ll give you that, but you are still OT. Make another comment tree.
Explain like I’m five what makes socialism off-topic when the discussion was about socialism. Explain how you can stumble ass-backwards into a conversation about what tankies believe in and not realise we’ll be discussing socialism.
Also, saying I “learned what I was talking about” is just a non sequitur. I was talking about socialism then, and I’m talking about socialism now.
You also intimated that MLs simply “haven’t discovered social democracy”
This is especially completely hilarious for anyone actually reading even a wiki page and knowing that the the most historically important M-L party, CPSU, was originally named literally Russian Social Democratic Labour Party and that all marxists called themselves social-democrats for a decades, until the bulk of them betrayed the working class and supported imperialism in WW1.
You know youre doing good when tankies talk shit on you. I was once DM spammed by a bunch of nazis when I talked shit about it. Fun times and makes me stay on the right lane
Maybe you mistyped, but why on Earth would Nazis defend tankies? The most Nazi deaths in history were caused by the Soviets. Nazis foam at the mouth with rage at the thought of anything to the left of Hitler himself
Sorry mate, I was unclear. The time of DMs I was referring to was when I was talking shit about nazis specifically, tankies weren’t in the vicinity of the discussion. But yeah the two are mortal enemies despite the awkward similarities between the ideologies.
You’re just trying to troll me, and I’m losing interest. Socialism and Nazism do not have the same outcome. You’ve just been eating that neoliberal propaganda.
Alright so there is an inherent difference between uh… genocide and… let’s see, oh, genocide. What a marvelous conclusion. thank you. I will make sure to dismiss reality in favour of what someone said in a book.
Okay, I’m awaiting your arguments fuelled by the discredited Black Book - the only source that supports the Holodomor conspiracy theory. Ah, the shoe’s on the other book-thumping foot now, right?
So you’re not even disputing what I said. Didn’t expect much from you, but this is a new low.
Which part of communist theory calls for, or necessitates, genocide? Where, in between seizing the means of production, and abolishing the state, is there anything about any ethnic cleansing?
No I don’t think it’s my job to tell you genocides happen.
Which part of communist theory calls for, or necessitates, genocide?
The authoritarian part of it. You know, the same part that causes genocides with fascism too. Also, as we’ve seen, reality, as in, in reality we see communist regimes committing genocides. I know we’re still working on the “reality” part with you so take your time trying to understand that reality exists.
No I don’t think it’s my job to tell you genocides happen.
We’re not discussing your job, so don’t try to change the subject to what wretched drudgery you do for a living. None of this is done for employment, so that is an absurd point to make. But you have already taken it upon yourself to try and prove your points to me - but you are failing. Saying that you are not employed to succeed does not fill me with much hope that you are able to succeed at all.
The authoritarian part of it
There is not a single authoritarian part of communism. Finally we get to prove how little you know.
For the first thing, communism is stateless - that is, there is no state apparatus whatsoever. No need for it.
Secondly, communism is classless. There are no elites and peasants, everyone is simply a person and worker - of whichever stripe of work they desire to do that moment.
You know, the same part that causes genocides with fascism too.
Fascism causes genocides because it is an ethno-nationalist ideology, that inherently classes anyone but the chosen group as undesirable and worthy of death. There is nothing even resembling this in communist ideology, even the distaste toward capitalists doesn’t even come close to the pure hatred fascism feels toward anyone not of the right race, sex, or nationality.
I dare you to provide me a single quote from any communist theorist that calls for an extermination of any kind whatsoever.
Also, as we’ve seen, reality, as in, in reality we see communist regimes committing genocides
You have yet to even name one. In fact, you have yet to even name a “communist regime”, as such a thing is an oxymoron. You may find me regimes that call themselves socialist, and these regimes may even be led by a party that calls itself socialist, but you’ll struggle to find anything resembling communism because no country has been allowed to even progress into socialism, let alone progress along socialism toward communism.
I know we’re still working on the “reality” part with you so take your time trying to understand that reality exists.
Dude, this line of argument is so patently fucking bonkers. Let me show you why.
2 + 2 = 4.
Why?
Reality.
Harry Potter’s mother’s name is Lily.
How do you know that? Where is that information?
Reality.
Cows eat grass.
Who told you that?
Reality.
Are you following yet? Reality is the total sum of knowledge. It is the least specific possible way to try to prove a point. It is basically saying “trust me, bro.” You cannot say you are right by just appealing to the vagueness that is “reality”. You have to actually use reason.
The political definition of liberal generally involves free enterprise. Social Democrats are generally trying to phase out free enterprise towards higher regulation and public good. Social Democrats seek to move society towards socialism nonviolently. That is not really a “liberal” thing by the version of that term generally used by Marxists.
While retaining socialism as a long-term goal, social democracy is distinguished from some modern forms of democratic socialism for seeking to humanize capitalism and create the conditions for it to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian, and solidaristic outcomes… It has been described as the most common form of Western or modern socialism,[6] as well as the reformist wing of democratic socialism. ( ref )
Social democracy is, by definition, geared towards socialism while still acting within capitalism to better society by pushing for direct action against inequality. The way a lot of socdems see it, the difference between them and demsocs is that demsocs tend to be neutral (or even negative) on steps that better overall quality-of-life that involve working within the capital system. For example, a socdem would embrace public option, or growing medicare as a good thing in the US because it’s better than what we have. A demsoc **might ** not because it is not actually taking a concrete step towards nationalizing healthcare.
Categorizing is hard because different people think different things of different terms, but it is unfair to categorically call socdems “liberal” in the “free enterprise” sense.
I never claimed there weren’t any women who were pedos. But the vast majority of those that are men are, in fact, cis men, not trans men. And of those that are women, the vast majority are cis women, if we’re including women as well.
You mean your bullshit screed hating on public rail and showing your anti-homeless brainworms where you literally implied that “people don’t hate them enough”?
Also “boo hoo the ‘tankies’ (whatever that even means to you libs anymore) bullied me for supporting violence against some of the most vulnerable people in the imperial core”
lmao You have been complaining about this for FIVE DAYS holy shit.
I love public rail and took it all over the place when I visited Japan, I even still have the JR Pass ticket in my wallet. If I had one public transportation wish for LA it’s that every freeway have a light rail line like in the 105. As for the homeless situation I am all in for fully funded housing first initiatives and think we haven’t done anywhere near enough for them. That said, the unfortunate state of events between the LA Metro and the city’s homeless allows for some very problematic things to happen in light rail train cars especially during transit. I’ve seen quite a bit of drug use, littering, and even an instance when I had a taser brandished at my face only to find out a second later the guy was trying to sell it to me. I really wish people wouldn’t react so quickly to a post and start accusing them of being some kind of monster.
“they certainly don’t hate them enough to chase them away when they are smoking meth on the train” sounds kinda like you think that should be done and that the issue is people not hating the unhoused enough.
Especially when you come into a space that explicitly advocates for abolishing landlords and start saying that stuff, you should expect ridicule. Instead of complaining about it in other spaces for 5 days and repeatedly doubling down you could just do some very basic self-crit.
I’m not the one that made this post but it would track with the general reddit-like nature of their other comments. It sounds like a very common thing I hear from reactionaries IRL that are clearly made-up or are hyperfixating on a hypothetical or outlier incident instead of just understanding that is not a failure of trains. Like the whole context was “sometimes trains aren’t good actually because I saw a mentally unwell person I have no proof is actually homeless.” Not all unhoused people look like the caricature most people have in their head, and not everyone that does drugs in public on a train is actually unhoused, though the latter is certainly a more reasonable assumption to make. The combinations of all these characteristics of this person it was clear they were engaging in bad faith at best, and outright lying at worst. I am not making a judgement either way but it is a specific sort of reactionary thinking that is encountered all too often in online communist spaces, and so it’s no surprise when people have short patience with this sort of thing.
If you’ve seen it enough you tend to get a sense for this time of debatebro and it’s rare that it’s a simple well-meaning misunderstanding because if it were it is very easy to have some humility. It’s the getting all offended by people laughing at something that is a textbook reactionary response, in a place where bullying libs and reactionaries is a pillar of its community culture. Furthermore going around other instances and complaining about said community sort of makes you fair game and I would not call it brigading, especially in a “what are instances you hate” thread, wherein the User compared us to right wingers. Which is itself a very tired very old trope known as “horseshoe theory”. And last but not least there is the term Tankie which is most often used to imply people on the imperial periphery or global south seeking national liberation are following a problematic ideology (because often the word gets used to refer to anyone left of Bernie Sanders on foreign policy a "tankie), which has deeply white supremacist or western chauvinist connotations.
So in short, does it really matter whether they live in LA or not? They certainly have a colonizer’s mindset with regard to their local community even if they claim to be for “paying for more social services.” That is like the core reason why social democracy and liberalism are derided as fascism lite by most communists.
You sure got a lot of context out of “they certainly don’t hate them enough to chase them away when they are smoking meth on the train”. I don’t think that was a great thing to say (not that it is not an issue and needs to be addressed) but instead of even trying some level of communication or rebuttal it seems like everyone just went full “reactionary” on them.
There is no “sense for this time of debatebro” or ability to see enough text to pull from that one sentence a sentence of endless fascism (or whatever problematic box). They have every right to get upset and go around other instances, because yours banned them. I have not seen a lot of humility here from anyone involved but what gets me is that some people think they get all the rights but others don’t.
Yes it does matter whether they live in LA or not as in one case they could be relating an actual experience they had and the other would be them spinning a web. In once case you could do some good and engage and for the other prove they where wrong and acting in bad faith.
Thank you for being a voice of reason MooPoo. I apologize if my original comment came off as callous and insensitive. I heavily sympathize with the plight of the homeless and my only problem is with those who can be a danger to themselves or others, especially in an enclosed area like a train. TBH I sympathize with ideologies that are beyond left of the American Overton window since I’m quite familiar with what Western countries have done to suppress them. Thanks for pointing out how they were the ones being reactionary without so much as giving a warning before the ban.
Nakoichi, I don’t expect you to unban me from your community but I hope we can at least understand each other enough to not see us as enemies.
You’re still sort of dodging the crux of the issue, you continue to place blame on the oppressed rather than engage with our comments and begin to grasp why the ultimate onus of responsibility lies on the oppressing classes. Let’s not get too derailed here (pun intended) from the original context: Your comments were a critique of public transit, followed by trying to back up that critique with a personal anecdote of a time you felt threatened by a homeless person. The responses to this barely surface level take that indicated influence by a deluge of reactionary propaganda were not out of line to make uncharitable assumptions about you, since we have had a large influx of bad faith arguments along these lines since federating.
I am not the one that banned you, and you’re right it’s not even in my power since I am not a mod of c/urbanism, but it should be a point of self reflection on why that is the route you took instead of being indignant about it. You’re the one that came into our instance and you might not understand what our rules fully entail or what reactionary behavior is but that’s not really our fault, I gave you a detailed breakdown of the reasons folks that post like this get banned so quickly and you might read it if you care as much as you appear to.
Hell you can still post on Hexbear if you aren’t site banned but you might try to start by asking good faith questions without preloading them with personal grievances. Or you can ask me, I’m pretty patient when I have reason to believe the inquirer is acting in good faith.
That said just be aware that civility is often reserved for people that have proven the latter so given prior engagement, just don’t expect people not to dunk on you for an exceptionally bad take. Ignorance is not always a good excuse.
So whats your plan other then just let them smoke meth and steal from people obviously something needs to be done but putting your head in the sand and pretending there isn’t actually a problem won’t fix anything
A socialist state where housing is a guarantee and where poverty doesn’t lead to widespread drug use because it doesn’t exist. Also addiction recovery programs in the transitional state.
Why. What is yours, push them into a comically large blender? Or a prison, how about a prison?
Right the millions of poor rural Chinese living below the poverty line don’t exist sure if you pretend that the problem doesn’t exist it makes it easier to believe the ccp propaganda
the poverty line is very made up bullshit based on nothing but vibes some economists had, not even any statistics, it should be higher in a lot of places, lower in others where the price of things is lower, but in any case, no one claimed poor rural Chinese people don’t exist, ThereRisesARedStar said they don’t have a homelessness problem anywhere approaching the west, which is true, all of those poor rural Chinese people have homes, hell most of them even own their own homes, they don’t even rent, so, what exactly is your point? China has been the largest alleviator of poverty in modern history, yet, they do still have poverty, it has not been eradicated yet, but, they do not have a homelessness issue due to government initiatives that have worked very hard to make sure there is enough housing for their population (see western propaganda about ghost cities and the reality of how they’re all filled with people now)
what facts did I deny? do you want me to get you the homelessness and home ownership statistics for China? I assure you that they support my point, which is that the majority of people in China (even the poor rural people) are not homeless and even own their own homes.
For as much as the news talks about a declining birth rate, you are aware that people are still born in the west, right?
“Move”
You knowing moving isn’t free and it isn’t easy for most people to get a job in a country whose language they don’t speak, right?
Furthermore, even if someone does move, then you don’t take it as proof they are a hypocrite but rather proof they are delusional, so your original claims is just bad faith bullshit.
On the bright side, since you seemed to imagine that I was going there, you proved my point that the first claim (“why don’t you move there?”) is bad faith bullshit
lemmy.ml
Active