My thought is that you are helping. By being an active user posting content, you have helped to boost this places numbers. And the more content there is the more people we can bring over to this side.
Oh nooooooo someone made a familiar and easy to use app to help people get used to this new ecosystem that can only thrive if people actually show up and use it. What a real shame.
I mean great in what way? Great at looking into the empty mind of a conservative grifter? The scene of that researcher trying to explain the intricacies of gender identity and expression, and Matt Walsh zoning out to classical music will be stuck with me forever
IMO those researchers should be able to easily explain what is a woman or any of those asked definitions, but somehow they are just stuck in a loop of a circular definitions… thats pretty much says to me, they are no researchers but charlatans…
And you would be wrong. It’s almost impossible to narrow down a definition to something that includes everything that is, and excludes everything that isn’t. The entire point behind gender identity and expression is that human beings are extremely complex, and the things we attribute to biological sex are almost all sociologically constructed. Trying to rigidly define a woman will inevitably exclude those who even conservatives would consider traditionally consider woman. As such, a deep look into gender theory is needed to understand how we categorize people into different genders.
The entirety of sciences is based on generalizations of stuff by their common denominating parameters, despite the outliers. This includes chemistry, physics,…
Generally in biology, the female are usually characterized as the sex producing immobile ova and the males producing mobile sperm. The outliers, which due to some mutation or other reason doesnt fit that description, doesnt change the definition, they are simply described as outliers.
Its now also indicated by studies, that those intersex outliers in humans are mostly caused by endocrine disruptors during pregnancy but also during later life: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.4137/EHI.S39825
Great as in nicely edited, compelling in a Michael Moore way. I just rewatched it and think I know which scene you mean. They could’ve left more of his contortions in, fair enough, but he gets an awful lot of airtime besides. How is Walsh a grifter? I only know him from this documentary and the interview that led me to it.
I did the opposite. The moment I saw Sync for Lemmy available to download I installed it and immediately purchased Ultra because bless LJ for making the superior app. He deserves getting paid for his work. And it’s not like he requires you to pay for the app. It’s free for everyone, you just get some additional features if you are willing to pay and by doing that you also support the developer. So I decided to support him. I’ve been using Sync for Reddit before and I knew I needed this app for Lemmy. Now I feel home.
Idk, half the apps look like they are just a fork of one app including sync. Why pay for an app that is mostly just a reskin of an open source project.
It just looks like every other lemmy app. They all look the same with a few things changed and their talking points are so similar from app to app. It’s almost completely impossible to decifer the differences without trying them out. If it wasn’t a fork I wouldn’t know because they are so similar on the play store.
If anything, the Lemmy apps would look like Sync, because obviously Sync has existed way longer, even before Lemmy was even a thing. The more likely reason most of them look the same on Android, is because they’re following some (sometimes older) form of Material Design, the design standard for Android.
It would be easier just to imagine a generic social media app than to copy sync. It would look similar too because sync is pretty generic in feature set, like all social media apps are in feature set. Besides I pay developers for making a good app not paying the developers to make it a good app.
I say this as someone who is probably one of the biggest supporters of software-freedom around here, but bullying or shaming people for preferring non-free apps does nothing but incite resentment towards the movement. I value the four freedoms because I think I deserve control of my computing, not because I think it’s my place to dictate what others should value.
The community is one of the worst aspects when working with/on opensource software.
There are so many people with Open Source rabies…
Combine that with all those people who don’t understand the difference between software developed by people who donate their spare time to work on FOSS software and for-profit software developed by big corporations. As a FOSS dev you get so many entitled assholes who think downloading a free app gives them the right to threaten/abuse the devs.
And then there are the fanboys who attack everyone who talks about downsides of their favourite product.
All in all, the hostile community makes FOSS development very not fun.
I don’t get why instead of making posts about “Don’t use Sync!” no one is saying “Feel free to use and pay for whatever you like! But as a friendly reminder please note that you should also consider helping your instance owners or the core Lemmy team as well.”
There’s nothing wrong at all with paying for software, and even some will be fine with ads. It has literally nothing to do with anyone else but that person. Let them do them.
Like I say though, I think the thing that should be being said is that the app is not self contained and that these people should seriously consider helping out the other aspects as well if they can. But hey, no, let’s just belittle them and push them away instead of welcoming them. I can almost guarantee that the availability of Sync will bring more users to Lemmy that never would have been here otherwise.
I don’t think the meme is bullying or shaming people using sync…right? He said he likes infinity better even though sync is awesome because its libre and open source
A tankie with a Stalin avatar asks “what’s communism?” You can’t even make this up.
I’ll let Marx tell you:
“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
-Manifesto of the Communist Party
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.
This is obvious, what does your ‘variant’ of Marxism do differently than Marxism-Leninism, and has it come close to establishing a DOTP that can fending off imperialist attacks against it?
Your questions betray a terrible confusion. There was never a DotP “established” by Marxism-Leninism. There was no such thing as “Marxism-Leninism” when the Bolsheviks siezed power from the provisional government in October. By the time “Marxism-Leninism” was created by Stalin, there was no longer a DotP in Russia as the world revolution had degenerated and capitulated to class collaborationist opportunism. “Marxism-Leninism” is the result of and the excuse for that opportunism and from its inception took the role of the ideology of the nationalist foreign policy of the capitalist Soviet State divorced from the historical communist programme.
Why do you think Stalin need to jail, kill, or exile all the old guard?
‘Marxism Leninism’ was created by Lenin a deviation of Marxism suited to the conditions for the newly founded USSR, and it set forth by Stalin. Just because Stalin stimulated economic growth through a mixed economy doesn’t make him a ‘traitor’ or a ‘capitalist’, as it helped develop the industries the USSR needed to fend off the fascist threat during WW2, as the Chinese and Vietnamese are doing today. Also, what was so ‘nationalist’ about the USSR’s foreign policy? It promoted local languages and cultures in all the Soviet republics, and just because Russian was the lingua franca, that doesn’t mean that Stalin was ‘Russifying’ the many republics. Lastly the USSR started collectivization of farms and nationalization of the many industries (Increasing the quality of life dramatically) during his time along with an alliance with independent politicians (Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans), as for the Red Guard, some of them were opportunists or traitors (Like Trotsky, Yezhov, or Bukharin)
Lenin, however, didn’t create Marxism-Leninism, and never said anything that deviated from Marx.
He didn’t create it, he created the principles for it, expanding on Marx.
Additionally, the move towards this “mixed-economy” you refer to, and the move closer and closer to capitalism signified a retreat, not a step towards socialism. Lenin says this in multiple speeches and reports.
The New Economic Policy was adopted because, in the spring of 1921, after our experience of direct socialist construction carried on under unprecedentedly difficult conditions, under the conditions of civil war, in which the bourgeoisie compelled us to resort to extremely hard forms of struggle, it became perfectly clear that we could not proceed with our direct socialist construction and that in a number of economic spheres we must retreat to state capitalism. We could not continue with the tactics of direct assault, but had to undertake the very difficult, arduous and unpleasant task of a long siege accompanied by a number of retreats. This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i. e., that of the economic transition to socialist principles - V.I Lenin
Many of the people targeted were Lenin’s old friends and associates. Many were heroes of the civil war. These were people who were heavily involved in the revolution- people who risked everything to bring about revolution in Russia
It was Yezhov who executed them, he was later executed himself for his crimes. Many of them were committed to Stalin and his ideas for socialist development, for example Lazar Kaganovich, and only a few of them were putchists (Like Trotsky) or traitors. I’d like to see your source for the supposed ‘hundreds of thousands’ killed by these purges.
It is an insult to the socialist system to say that an “opportunistic and traitorous” Stalin would be able to become a “dictator” within it.
He didn’t create it, he created the principles for it, expanding on Marx.
He did not add to Marx, he only applied Marx to the specific conditions of 20th century Russia. The challenge remains for you to show that Lenin updated Marx or believed that he was.
…This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i. e., that of the economic transition to socialist principles
Do you understand the context of what you posted? Apparently not. He’s alluding to the ongoing international struggles. He knows that socialism will be impossible in Russia without those victories.
Our backwardness has put us in the forefront, and we shall perish unless we are capable of holding out until we receive powerful support from workers who have risen in revolt in other countries."
Source: “Letters on Tactics,” 1917
“We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism.”
Source: “The Tax in Kind,” 1921
“We always staked our play upon an international revolution and this was unconditionally right… We counted upon a revolution of the world proletariat and were of the opinion that Europe after the war would rise so rapidly that either the spark of our revolution would kindle it, or that it would kindle our damp squib.”
Source: Speech at the 4th Congress of the Comintern
These statements stand in stark contrast to the policy of “Socialism in one Country” of Marxism-Leninism. ML has nothing to do with Marx or Lenin.
It is an insult to the socialist system to say that an “opportunistic and traitorous” Stalin would be able to become a “dictator” within it.
Not even Lenin thought they had reached socialism yet. Even the quote you posted said as much, so I can only assume you can’t read.
What about ancient voters though. They vote for yesterdays politics to shape a world they won’t have to live in anymore. Voting rights should also be based on basic cognitive functionality
memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.