Maybe it’s different in the USA, but I’ve travelled a lot and don’t think I ever remember a long haul flight without multiple babies and young children. It’s just a fact of travelling.
I recently did a 16hr flight solo and the other 3 seats in my row of 4 were parents and a toddler.
That’s just part of flying and you should plan for it (noise cancelling headphones, sleeping tablets, ear plugs).
kids crying/screaming on public transport/etc rarely bothers me. impatient parents hissing at them to shut up and sit down does, however… i get it, they’re tired, being a parent is hard, but still.
a kid cries on the tram? i keep reading, barely even notice
a parent goes off on their kid? rips me right out of the book and makes me take notice
We’ve flown a lot in the US with our now 2 year old to visit family, and have never had anyone say anything to us on a flight in a negative way. We’ve had a lot of people tell us how great our son did even if he got a little fussy here and there. We’ve flown first class with him several times and no issues.
I’d say we’re lucky that he is a little rockstar and handles it very well, but it is definitely stressful for us but just part of what we have to do sometimes to see family. I feel terrible for people that have to do longer haul flights with smaller kids though, 2-3 hours is manageable but if we had family overseas we would probably fork over the cash to fly people to us rather than put him on a plane for that long. For our sake more than his lol.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine.
One thing I absolutely cannot stand is the assumption that if you’re against the Israeli government, you must also be antisemitic. In many cases, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Israeli government is just as screwed up as any powerful government, and is not immune to criticism. Groundless accusations of antisemitism are often used to unfairly attack critics, distract the listener from valid criticisms, and derail the conversation.
Of course, many of those accusations are completely justified, which clouds the issue further.
It’s super tricky and problematic. Organizations like AIPAC have many American politicians in their pocket. They pump a huge amount of money into lobbying our government promoting Israeli interests. But this argument gets awfully close to “the Jews have all the money and control the world” type conspiracy thinking which is very frustrating.
Most definitely. Just as pointing out unwarranted accusations of antisemitism can sound like victim blaming, and saying that the Israeli government likes it that way can make you come off as a hateful, insensitive jerk.
Various world politicians “wrap themselves in the flag” all the time. Israeli politicians do the same thing, but they’ve done an especially good job of weaving religion and patriotism together.
I’m on the fence here. Luckily, at least, I think community/subreddit-based sites like Lemmy/Reddit don’t have “network effects” that are as “sticky” as Mastodon/Twitter, because with Lemmy/Reddit you don’t need to build up a follower list to start getting value. You just join the community and it’s as if you immediately “followed” a bunch of people who share your interests. You don’t even need to make an account - you can just bookmark a community and lurk, and maybe you eventually make an account to start interacting. It’s a great “on-ramp” - very low barrier to entry/usefulness.
I think that’s why Lemmy was able to take off so fast. It relies on community-level coordination, rather than every individual user having to make their own choice to switch, and try to get all their followers/followees to switch. So even if Meta did add a community-style mode, I don’t think it’d eat into the Lemmy userbase. It is hard to be sure though, and I respect the choices of those instances that have blocked/defederated.
Mastodon admins have a harder decision to make I think - there’s an opportunity to get very quick growth by effectively adding a lot more followable users/content. A bunch of people don’t like Meta/Facebook, but want to follow their friends, and so they may use Mastodon to do that, which could get a lot more people to move to “real” fediverse apps/sites like Mastodon. I know a lot of people that are on Threads now, and I’m looking forward to being able to follow them from Mastodon, rather than being forced to get Threads to keep up to date with what they’re working on.
No fences up my ass here, I didn’t jump so quickly to lemmy to be immediately joined to fucken Facebook. Like. At all. I’d bet a quick poll would speak loudly
I dont think you’ve taken into account what people in lemmy value the most.
Their principles. They mostly joined lemmy because one of their principle is against big corp controlling us for their own purpose.
That’s why threads is being blocked preemptively. Because they are corpo. Now compare that to exploding heads instance. The slowness of blocking another instance because of hate speech and bigotry. It’s because exploding heads issue does not or barely touched most lemmy peoples principle trigger. They allowed it to exist first for a long time before even considering of blocking it
UPDATE: Those rumours have been confirmed as at least one Mastodon admin, kev, from fosstodon.org, has been contacted to take part in an off-the-record meeting with Meta. He had the best possible reaction: he refused politely and, most importantly, published the email to be transparent with its users. Thanks kev!
kev should’ve accepted the meeting to see if he could infer the intent…
When companies like META show you how ruinous they are the first dozen times, over and over without end, you believe them, and you defend yourself, or you deserve every bad thing that’s going to happen to you, when they repeat their corporate driven ends at your expense
You’re right, but when spreading FUD it helps to have some concrete examples. Otherwise it just looks like you’re going off of emotion. It’s a dangerous path to go down, but a lot of people have no problem walking it.
I think this falls more into the category of being such blatant common knowledge that it doesn’t need to be cited. Just as I wouldn’t feel the need to cite the claim that fast-food is unhealthy.
“Oh, man…who would’ve thought that the people who want to monetize everything and dominate any market they get into would not just be our friends this time?”
I promise you I have done exactly that, i had an auto clicker bound to my space bar and was to lazy to click and would just hold the space bar down when I knew that I was going to click a bunch of gui buttons.(which I though wouldnt be problem) Quickly learned some programs don’t like it at all. Lol
I didn’t have to work on it for just to not click through ui menus, I just had my autoclicker enabled from some reason(likely game) and just randomly thought, “I’ll use the autoclick, lol” and had some interesting stuff happen. It was entertaining and nothing about being practical.
Though counterpoint: if someone is willing to spend $3000+ on an apple computer and cool swag. The ads already worked.
However, if the Q/A on your product is so bad, that someone who spends $3000+ would rather install an ad-block to get rid of that experience, maybe the quality assurance on those ads or products aren't as good as people think.
Tbh I was browsing a few nsfw subs/users earlier today and it was annoying as fuck, with errors every other page, images not loading, galleries half-loading, sooooo
Honestly, I stopped using Nintendo because of all the joycon issues, the fact they’ve been mainly just remaking the same games for 30 years and they screwed Wii u customers. You need to re buy the same games again.
On Wii u, not sure if this changed, but if you broke the main controller, you basically couldn’t replace it.
They have a better rep than Microsoft and Sony , but I’m not convinced they deserve it
No idea why anyone would buy anything except a steamdeck these days
I’m a woman and I have never needed to chart 28 days.
that screenshot up there reads like some academic person with too much time on their hands trying too hard to congratulate themselves for solving some anthropological mystery.
But since before you were born people knew how long a woman’s menstrual cycle lasts. Most likely the Internet existed when you became an adult and thought about measuring things. The society you lived in had existing calendars that you were aware of if/when you had a menstrual cycle. You’ve never needed to “chart 28 days” but someone who lived long long ago may have wondered and they would have had no frame of reference so they decided to count.
I’m a woman and I have never needed to chart 28 days.
Is this because you don’t care when your next period is? Or because you don’t need to record it to remember it?
I can imagine a modern woman might not care if she always has menstrual products on hand or nearby. But, it might have been more meaningful in ancient times when there might have been more taboos associated with menstruation, plus it might have been more important to know as part of family planning. And, it might have been much less convenient to carry around whatever was needed to handle menstruation.
Also, in a modern world where calendars are everywhere, I can imagine someone might say “ok, so my next period will be in early July”. But, there was a time when days and months were not tracked, or were only tracked by priests, etc. In that kind of situation, I could imagine it might be useful to count the days until the next period was expected. On the other hand, a primitive society probably spends a lot more time outdoors and sees the moon a lot more often, so it might be just as easy to go “ok, so my next period will be when the moon’s 3/4 full”.
28 notches means that the bone had 29 sections, which more closely matches a lunar month than a typical menstrual period. But, I could see it being used either way.
There are definitely some folks that see “National Socialism” as the party name and look no further. Fortunately, I don’t think it’s a strong majority, but they pop up online.
It’s always as a “See!! Socialism bad!!” but yep they were literally fascist, Rushia too and yet here we are with people still thinking communist Rushia was communist.
Saying that Facists are Facists is trivializing the holocaust? How’s that work? The fact Nazis were Facists doesn’t trivialize the fact that other groups are also Facists. Facists like to kill people that’s kind of their whole ideology. Fascist ideology leads directly to the kind of ideas the Nazis had.
You could always actually read the essay that you were linked to, rather than continue to just put your fingers in your ears and shout your false assertion over and over.
Soviet Union will eternally be among the greatest nations of all times and humanity will forever be in its debt for the sacrifices of the Red Army in its victorious struggle to defeat Nazism. Soviet Union bled in the millions so that everyone could live. No greater sign of love by a nation has been given.
Fascism is when you destroy Nazi Germany and end the Holocaust which the Nazis started, rescuing countless Jews and other people from Nazi death camps. I am extremely historically literate.
Facists [sic] like to kill people that’s kind of their whole ideology.
That… wasn’t the point of Fascism. Frankly, I’d be surprised if you could name the countries or regions where the Italian Fascists committed their massacres.
The point of Fascism was to forcibly save capitalism from the concessions that the lower classes won. I recommend listening to this: lemmy.today/post/315713
You could always actually read the essay that you were linked to, rather than continue to just put your fingers in your ears and shout your false assertion over and over.
Ignoring everything else wrong about your one sentence, a dictatorship needn’t be helmed by a single person. Brazil was a dictatorship from the 60s to the 90s, and had 6 different presidents during that time.
Okay, what about the whole soviets and sharing power with trade unions thing? What about their innovations in participatory democracy. The USSR were hyperdemocratic, even on war footing, at least until destalinization happened and the bureaucracy started taking hold.
Cuba follows a really similar system to the soviets system and it is probably as close to a democracy as you can get in a capitalist world, so how is it that the USSR was undemocratic? Did the evil russkies implement council democracy but forgot to actually do it??? Just like they implemented the Washington Consensus post-breakdown but forgot to do the American-“democracy”??
His sentence isn’t wrong. Stalin did try to resign multiple times (four actually). When his fourth resignation was rejected by the party he then attempted to abolish his own position entirely.
It is said that in that “will” [Lenin’s Testament - ZB] Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s “rudeness” it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress [Undefined date of this attempt, however, within the Thirteenth Congress and thus anywhere within the 23rd to the 31st - ZB] I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.
What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.
A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.
What else could I do?
August 19, 1924 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):
To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] RCP [Russian Communist Party]
One and a half years of working in the Politburo with comrades Zinoviev and Kamanev after the retirement and then the death of Lenin have made perfectly clear to me the impossibility of honest, sincere political work with these comrades within the framework of one small collective. In view of which, I request to be considered as having resigned from the Pol[itcal] Buro of the CC.
I request a medical leave for about two months.
At the expiration of this period I request to be sent to Turukhansk region or to the Iakutsk oblast’, or to somewhere abroad in any kind of work that will attract little attention.
I would ask the Plenum to decide all these questions in my absence and without explanations from my side, because I consider it harmful for our work to give explanations aside from those remarks that I have already made in the first paragraph of this letter.
I would ask comrade Kuibyshev to distribute copies of this letter to the members of the CC.
With com[munist] greet[ings], J. Stalin.
December 27, 1926 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):
To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] (to comrade Rykov). I ask that I be relieved of the post of GenSec [General Secretary] of the CC. I declare that I can work no longer in this position, I do not have the strength to work any more in this position. J. Stalin.
Stalin: Comrades! For three years [Suggesting there could be more resignation attempts unbeknownst to me - ZB] I have been asking the CC [Central Committee] to free me from the obligations of General Secretary of the CC. Each time the Plenum has refused me. I admit that until recently conditions did not exist such that the Party had need of me in this post as a person more or less severe, one who acted as a certain kind of antidote to the dangers posed by the Opposition. I admit that this necessity existed, despite comrade Lenin’s well-known letter [Lenin’s Testament - ZB], to keep me at the post of General Secretary. But these conditions exist no longer. They have vanished, since the Opposition is now smashed. It seems that the Opposition has never before suffered such a defeat since they have not only been smashed, but have been expelled from the Party. It follows that now no bases exist any longer that could be considered correct when the Plenum refused to honor my request and free me of the duties of General Secretary. Meanwhile you have comrade Lenin’s directive which we are obliged to consider and which, in my opinion, it is necessary to put into effect. I admit that the Party was compelled to disregard this directive until recently, compelled by well-known conditions of inter-Party development. But I repeat that these conditions have now vanished and it is time, in my view, to take comrade Lenin’s directive to the leadership. Therefore I request the Plenum to free me of the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee. I assure you, comrades, that the Party can only gain from doing this.
Dogadov: Vote without discussion.
Vorshilov: I propose we reject the announcement we just heard.
Rykov: We will vote without discsussion…We vote now on Stalin’s proposal that he be freed from the General Secretaryship. Who is for this proposal? Who is against? Who abstains? One.
The proposal of comrade Stalin is rejected with one abstention.
Stalin: Then I introduce another proposal. Perhaps the CC [Central Committee] will consider it expedient to abolish the position of General Secretary. In our Party’s history there have been times when no such post existed.
Voroshilov: We had Lenin with us then.
Stalin: We had no post of General Secretary before the 10th Congress.
Voice: Until the 11th Congress.
Stalin: Yes, it seems that until the 11th Congress we did not have this position. That was before Lenin stopped working. If Lenin concluded that it was necessary to put forward the question of founding the position of General Secretary, then I assume he was prompted by the special circumstances that appeared with us before the 10th Congress, when a more or less strong, well-organized Opposition within the Party was founded. But now we proceed to the abolition of this position. Many people associate a conception of some kind of special rights of the General Secretary with this position. I must say from my experience, and comrades will confirm this, that there ought not to be any special rights distinguishing the General Secretary from the rights of other members of the Secretariat.
Voice: And the duties?
Stalin: And there are no more duties than other members of the Secretariat have. I see it this way; There’s the Politburo, the highest organ of the CC; there’s the Secretariat, the executive organ consisting of five persons, and all these five members of the Secretariat are equal. That’s the way the work has been carried out in practice, and the General Secretary has not had any special rights or obligations. The result, therefore, is that the position of General Secretary, in the sense of special rights, has never existed with us in practice, there has been only a collegium called the Secretariat of the CC. I do not know why we need to keep this dead position any longer. I don’t even mention the fact that this position, called General Secretary, has occasioned in some places a series of distortions. At the same time that at the top no special rights or duties are associated with the position of General Secretary, in some places there have been some distortions, and in all the oblasts there is now a struggle over that position among comrades who call themselves secretaries, for example, in the national CCs. Quite a few General Secretaries have developed, and with them in the localities special rights have been associated. Why is this necessary?
Shmidt: We can dismiss them in the localities.
Stalin: I think the Party would benefit if we did away with the post of General Secretary, and that would give me the chance to be free from this post. This would be all the easier to do since according to the Party’s constitution there is no post of General Secretary.
Rykov: I propose not to give comrade Stalin the possibility of being free from this position. As concerns the General Secretaries in the oblast and local organs, that should be changed, but without changing the situation in the CC. The position of General Secretary was created by the proposal of Vladimir Il’ich. In all the time since, during Vladimir Il’ich’s life and since, this position has justified itself politically and completely in both the organizational and political sense. In the creation of this organ and in naming comrade Stalin to the post of General Secretary the whole Opposition also took part, all those whom we have now expelled from the Party. That is how completely without doubt it was for everyone in the Party (whether the position of General Secretary was needed and who should be the General Secretary). By which has been exhausted, in my opinion, both the question of the “testament” (for that point has been decided) and exhausted by the Opposition at the same time just as it has been decided by us as well. The whole Party knows this. What has changed now after the 15th Congress and why is it necessary to set aside the position of General Secretary.
This article was taken from the Russian newspaper Glasnost devoted to the 120th Anniversary of Stalin’s birth, was the last speech at the CC [Central Committee] CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] before Stalin died. The text was being published for the very first time in the Soviet Union…
…MOLOTOV – [Glasnost -] coming to the speaker’s tribune completely admits his mistakes before the CC, but he stated that he is and will always be a faithful disciple of Stalin.
STALIN – (interrupting Molotov) This is nonsense. I have no students at all. We are all students of the great Lenin.
[Glasnost -] Stalin suggested that they continue the agenda point by point and elect comrades into different committees of state.
With no Politburo, there is now elected a Presidium of the CC CPSU in the enlarged CC and in the Secretariat of the CC CPSU altogether 36 members.
In the new list of those elected are all members of the old Politbiuro – except that of comrade A. A. Andreev who, as everyone knows now is unfortunately completely deaf and thus can not function.
VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!
MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.
Same attempt (A. I. Mgeladze, Stalin. Kakim ia ego znal. Strannitsy nedavnogo poshlogo. p. 118):
At the first Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] called after the XIX Congress of the Party (I had been elected member of the CC and took part in the work of this Plenum), Stalin really did present the question of General Secretary of the CC CPSU, or of the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. He referred to his age, overwork, said that other cadres had cropped up and there were people to replace him, for example, N.I. Bulganin could be appointed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, but the CC members did not grant his request, all insisted that comrade Stalin remain at both positions.
So is it not like the west where you need to run for each term but more like a normal job with periodic reviews? i.e. in the west, leaving the position at the end of the term is sort of the “default” in terms of the mechanics (with staying requiring being opted-into).
The positions are elected by a vote at the supreme soviet assembly, those positions are elected by the soviets (councils) below the assembly, and those are elected by the soviets below that, and so on down to the lowest level where the local constituents vote.
In the party it’s generally considered a “duty” though, especially among those that participated in the revolution like Stalin who treated loyalty to the organisation, self-sacrifice and subordination to it as a significant and necessary part of what made the revolution succeed. Thousands of people literally sacrificing their whole lives for the goal.
As such, Stalin wouldn’t break a decision of the assembly just as he wouldn’t want anyone else to. If they said they still needed him in his post he did his duty and stayed despite not wanting to.
He largely held equal powers to everyone else on the Council of Ministers, the position of Chairman didn’t have special powers. The General Secretary role of the party was invented by Lenin with the intention of it being used to break opposition in the party (perform purges). Once Stalin had successfully performed his purges and prevented split in the country/civil-war he saw the position as having completed its purpose and wanted rid of it, he didn’t like the cult of personality around himself and wanted people to view the government in a collective capacity rather than an individual leader kind of way. That’s obviously not what ended up being the perception though. Lots of hero worship got in the way.
You’re moving the goalposts. Obviously a succession of dictatorships is possible, even with a preservation of an overarching dictatorial system. However, you can’t have a dictatorship where the so-called dictator doesn’t even have the authority to resign unilaterally. Try “oligarchy” next time and you’ll get more interesting responses.
Dictatorships are when almost the entire population supports the government. Democracy is when corporations own all candidates and the electoral college designed by slaveowners almost 300 years ago decides all presidential elections. I am a critical thinker.
Several countries that you support today still use a system very much like this. Cuba and Vietnam for example. A solid video on Cuban democracy is here: youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds
Incredibly I don’t think that the USSR is “as bad as the Nazis” nor did I say anything like that. Is that why you morons are calling me a Nazi? Do you guys need a paragraph explaining that yes I do think the Nazis are bad?
I’m not trying to win fuckn internet points I’d still be on reddit if I got turned on by that kinda shit. You people are.
Both Crowder and Shapiro have claimed this. They point out that the Nazi party was the ‘National Socialist German workers’ party’ and claim that’s enough for it to be socialist, and then also claim Russia is a communist country.
The USSR was a communist country. A normal use of that term is that a country communist is one that’s run by a communist party.
If you mean it didn’t achieve communism, well duh communism is a hypothesized society achieved through socialism where the state ceases to exist. No socialists, including the people of the USSR, would think that their nation-state has achieved communism as that’s oxymoronic. They would think of it as a transitional socialist state.
There’s a Hitler quote somewhere, in some letter that was like “we laugh at the fools who think our ideology has anything to do with the socialism of the bolsheviks”
There was another one where he says “I didn’t want to kill the Jews, but they’re all communists”
Someone with a better ability to keep track of sources than me probably knows where to find them
:::spoiler You may be referring to a line from Mein Kampf, volume 2, chapter 4.
The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day.
The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words ‘Fellow-countrymen and Women’ for ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ and addressed each other as ‘Party Comrade’. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint‐hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. :::
And the other paraphrase sounds like a reply to Planck: Planck began his intercession on behalf of Haber, even going so far as to say that without the latter’s chemical process for obtaining ammonia from the nitrogen of the air “the previous war would have been lost from the beginning.” To this remark Hitler retorted: “I have nothing at all against the Jews themselves. But the Jews are all Communists, and these are my enemies — it is against these that I am fighting.”
Even the DDR wasn’t doing socialism. The public had to be all-in the idea, or they were discredited or arrested. It was an authoritarian autocracy acting in the name of socialism.
That is indeed what your capitalist NGOs tell you with unlimited funds.
Consider that socialism is about control over the means of production, of deposing the capitalist system, and that your dismissal of the DDR as socialist didn’t address that at all. Do you think it’s possible you’ve been lied to?
No, I think I’m far enough on the left to be aware of capitalist propaganda. In all fairness to you, my statement did not treat the subject with the appropriate nuance the subject should require.
The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate. Yes, the means of production were “owned by the people,” but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime. Precisely what happened in the DDR and the USSR.
We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it “capitalist NGO propaganda.”
There was no issue re: nuance in your statements, they were just nonsensical and revealed a lack of understand the basic ideas of the topic. This trend has continued with this reply.
The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate.
The framing of socialism as ownership of the means of production goes hand-in-hand with control over the state. It’s how it was originally formulated by Marx, Engels, etc. The term “dictatorship of the proletariat” is stated in the same breaths and texts and concepts. There is no such thing as non-state socialism in this conception, the only conception that is relevant to this discussion.
This is something a person would know if they had ever read even a basic summary of this topic.
Yes, the means of production were “owned by the people,” but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime.
You’re even using the liberal NGO lexicon for this description! Vague generalizations about authoritarianism and cute little stories with no grounding in reality.
We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it “capitalist NGO propaganda.”
It’s not hard to identify a poor understanding when you have, you know, actually learned about these things. And interacted with thousands of people just like you and know why they parrot such nonsense. If you had an informed or valid criticism that would be something to talk about, but we are not in that situation. I think we are looking at a graduate of Reddit University, with all the intellectual humility that implies.
lemmy.ml
Top