probably because social networks (including reddit) tend to destroy themselves (even without external help, they just get stagnant and boring) once they get too big?
CIA had nothing to do with USSR being a failed state. Communism is just as easy to fuck up as capitalism or democracy. People are this way and no doctrine will ever be just as long as humans are responsible for its upkeep.
My ex wife’s dad worked his ass off, was wildly frugal and did nothing through his entire life up to retirement. 3 years after retiring he started showing signs of early onset dementia. It’s now been three years and it’s progressed terrifyingly fast. The man never lived and his opportunity to is gone.
I’m no longer thinking so hard about retirement and am looking more at living now through the rest of my ‘good’ years first. I’m still putting money toward my 401k, and I’m still hoping to retire someday, but it’s not the big hope anymore. I’d rather work till o die having lived the best life I could than do what he did.
None of us here are likely to “retire” anyway as climate-change-induced agricultural yields collapse will in turn destroy our modern societies before that
Right wing and Auth-Left is both terrible. I’d love seeing them fight each other. I wanna just see lemmygrad and exploding-heads being on the same instance for a day. I’d love to watch that drama.
The an-com flag is already there. Left libertarian and anarcho communist are basically synonymous as far as I’m aware. Not to mention the gadsen flag has been a generally right wing symbol for a while now
I think it really depends on who you’re taking about when you say centrist.
“Gays have gone too far. Now they want to get married. I’m not against gays, but marriage is between a man and a woman” was/is a despicable “centrist” position.
“I’m not sure student loans forgiveness is the best long term solution to education costs. I think ideally those trillions of dollars would be between spent on building schools, but it’s better than nothing” was/is common “centrist” position I don’t agree with but doesn’t bother me much.
It seems like there’s at least two definitions of centrist.
People who equate both parties policies at every turn are centrists in my mind.
In the mind of many others in the left, anyone slightly right of Sanders is a centrist. And I think that’s an entirely different definition.
The definitions are so opposed to each other that two people using the same word can be talking about something completely different.
And ya, both takes are hard to agree with, but one enables the trampling of civil rights, while the other simply has a separate view of how to use finite resources to solve a fiscal problem.
Anyone who equates those two takes os also quite “stupid.” Equating those two is a much worse take than the take about student loans forgiveness maybe not being the best way to address a national problem effecting hundreds of millions of citizens, that decades of neglect and misappropriation of tax funds created.
Also, Considering Biden is getting student loan forgiveness done, while sanders has not, the group that equates both parties, or moans at anyone left of sanders is doing the service of the centrist agenda, and in turn the right wing agenda.
Exactly. He’s not the president. And the person who is is getting the job done. Because sanders was not able to turn his candidacy into affect. And the Democratic Party “elites” put sanders in the role that he currently holds.
The two parties aren’t the same. Nuance about how to deal with the educational crisis of cost is not the enemy. Decades of neglecting education entirely is.
Btw: just so we are avoiding history revisionism. Student load forgiveness is being handled by the executive branch. Not the senate. And most definitely not by sanders.
i think most of us are referring to the enlightened centrist that has no belief other than being ‘in the middle’ of the two prominent positions. people who don’t want to rock the boat and are constantly looking for compromise no matter how abhorrent one position may be, like my uncle who wants me to get along with folks that literally want me as a queer person dead.
the real problem with being a ‘moderate’ or a ‘centrist’ is that it’s a moving target depending on the prevailing political positions of the day. in reality, american democrats are the centrists, and pretty much everyone else is right wing.
Yes, people that aren’t “equipped” with an all-emcompassing ideology that conveniently defines their whole worldview for an immediate opinion on everything or that don’t happen to have vehement feelings on the issue-of-the-day are literally peasants amirite?
“Auth-Left” is an oxymoron. Stalinism is just another flavor of top-down oppression of the common people, and all such oppression is right-wing by definition.
Seems like every time the left is accused of anything, it’s never actually the left that did it. It’s always some nefarious actor. The left cannot and never has done anything wrong… except for not being left enough, of course.
I literally just linked you the historical definition of leftism. Those who supported the aristocracy were on the right; those who supported the people were on the left. Now tell me, do you mean to claim that Stalin supported his people, or do you agree with me that he supported only himself and his cronies? Because if it’s the latter, then by the aforementioned historical definition, he was not a leftist.
I never disputed your link on the origins of the term.
All I said is that it seems very convenient that the left cannot and never has done anything wrong other than not being left enough. You’re either completely benevolent or you’re not a leftist, by definition.
There is no act that can’t be waived away as being “not actually left-wing.”
The word dishonest implies premeditation. I don’t think today’s leftists are evil or dumb. I think the hardcore leftists are in a well-intentioned trap that creates a dangerous and frankly annoying “us vs. them” mentality in which they are convinced, beyond rationale, that they are doing good, which is all that really matters to them.
It creates a left=moral good paradigm in their heads. Where, like I said, the left can’t do anything wrong because the left=good.
I mean, look at how they talk about centrists, who are not really their enemy. They’re supposed to be the people you try to persuade, but the left has gone so religiously dogmatic that even centrists are almost as bad as Nazis (e.i. right-wingers)
Look, I’m fundamentally with you. The right-wing is capable of terrible, horrific things. They’re more dangerous historically. You’ll get no argument from me man. Some of it makes me sick. I believe that morals and values should be a part of politics too. I’m no stranger to leftism either, I was extremely interested in it for quite a while.
But I know a trap when I see it. Clearly something is going here, fucking socio-economics is becoming a religion.
That’s why I cited an objective, historical definition of leftism: so that I can say that no, the people you’re talking about are not leftists, because they don’t fit this definition. They may call themselves leftists, but that doesn’t make it so, any more than Hitler calling himself a socialist, Stalin calling himself a communist, or North Korea calling itself a democratic people’s republic makes it so.
The same goes for religion, by the way. Thumping the Bible doesn’t make you a Christian. Loving thy neighbor does.
You’re preoccupied with this French revolutionary definition of leftism as the ultimate sieve for what makes a leftist and I’m trying to make a point that today’s leftism is a movement that isn’t capable of self-criticism because it’s become a religious movement as opposed to a political one. Things change, we don’t live in revolutionary France.
I feel like we’re talking past each other here… I wish the vulkan mind meld was a real thing so we can actually get somewhere with this.
You’re preoccupied with this French revolutionary definition of leftism as the ultimate sieve for what makes a leftist
Yes, because that was before the likes of Stalin and Mao tried to appropriate the term “leftism” for their own selfish purposes.
I’m trying to make a point that today’s leftism is a movement that isn’t capable of self-criticism because it’s become a religious movement as opposed to a political one.
I’m trying to make a point that those are fake leftists.
The disagreement, as I understand it, is this: when a person wearing a label of virtue acts contrary to that label, you believe that corrupts the label, whereas I believe that makes the person unworthy of the label and refuse to recognize the person as having the label.
It’s starting to be equally aggressive as Reddit or twitter are . The romance of the beginning is over . Also leftist and right tend to do bigotry . If you pick a side, Intolerance is inevitable
One side is literally founded on intolerance, while the other is based on intolerance towards those looking to oppress others. Your enlightened centrism will never make them equal, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself.
Person I replied to is the one who mentioned two side (though I get the feeling you're coming at this from the political compass point of view which is garbage in its own right).
As for your assessment - no tankies don't count as leftists, but anarchists sure do. Or do you consider ancaps to be anarchists? Because that's a whole other pile of wrong.
Either way, I'm seriously struggling to find the point of your reply.
Right, and hitler called himself a socialist, that didn't actually make him one (feel free to read my discussion with op bellow where we go in to exactly this).
Anyone with even a basic understanding of anarchism will tell you that capitalism is terminally incompatible with it, making an-cap an oxymoron and a made up thing to make upholders of the status quo feel like rebels.
All of that is certainly true, but anarchism is also terminally incompatible with reality. With no government, there’s nothing stopping some goon from raising a private army, declaring himself emperor, and killing anyone who tries to argue. That’s how we ended up with governments in the first place.
A basic understanding of anarchism is that it’s a belief that government is unnecessary, harmful, and should be abolished.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but it whatever it is, it clearly requires a non-basic understanding of anarchism, so why don’t you go ahead and educate me.
I’ve had some long conversations with anarchists. Seems to boil down to “everyone should just be nice to each other.” Let me know how that works out with people who don’t want to be nice.
Second off, one side is a broken status quo, the other side is rolling out public educational standards that say slavery was beneficial to slaves and that women’s problems are that they don’t smile more.
Well some of us happen live outside of the US where true centrist options still exist. Additionally, just because the US doesn’t have a centrist part and one side has decided to go full Nazi doesn’t mean you can’t still be centrist. Being a centrist doesn’t mean saying both sides are at fault or finding a position between both sides. It just means your views lie somewhere in between the traditional left and the traditional right in either or both social and economic topics. As an example, I don’t support communism, but that doesn’t mean I dont believe in social safety nets.
Then maybe don’t comment on the US environment just like you’re harping at me to not comment on the environment outside the US. Centrism here is a brand just like dem or repub, summarized in a nutshell as “I support everything Republicans are doing but don’t want the stigma of being known as a Republican.”
Since when is memes an “US” environment? Maybe learn to read and check where you are posting before assuming everyone in this world lives in your country.
You attacked me for not knowing what goes on outside the US, then presumed to know what’s going on inside the US, then attacked me for commenting on whats happening in the US. Where I am.
Translation: you’re a troll here just to stir up garbage and jerk off to the drama. Blocked.
The level of idiocy from some people here who can’t seem to think outside the media created brands in the US is just sad. Centrism has an actual definition that is not your extremist media created bs. Go educate yourself.
Having the smug to say “educate yourself”, only to be shown articles about the topic and refusing to engage with them is exactly the kind of brain rot I’d expect from a “centrist”
Calling them articles is a massive reach. Sources and the quality of those sources matter. Just because you get your extremist friends to brigade doesn’t change that fact.
You don’t know their quality because you refused to engage with them on principle. You locked yourself into your own safe little bubble and found an excuse to dismiss anything that challenges you. You just have to say it’s “extremist propaganda” and you can stay safe. If you wanna do that go ahead, but to then be smug to others and tell them to educate themselves when you’re unwilling to even listen to the positions of the people you’re arguing against is incredibly dishonest. Who do you even think you’re fooling?
No I refused to engage in them because I do not waste my time with biased extremist sources spouting bullshit and propaganda. I check the quality of the sources I consume information from before doing so.
Why yes, if you hold ethical stances, you don’t tolerate egregious deviations from them, but how on Earth is judging someone for their actions and attitudes akin to bigotry?
Honestly, Admins on instances need to be more generous with their ban hammers. It would probably help a lot. People have internalized a flawed notion of “protecting free-speech“ that allows people to be incredibly disruptive to communities in a very outsized way.
It might be the weakness of this particular website format. I have seen sites that have found ways to keep discussions from devolving into vitriol. Tildes keeps their flow of new users slow, and verifies everyone. Mastodon is literally whatever you want it to be, because by default it doesn't push content your way, you have to seek it out.
I did kinda hope the honeymoon period for lemmy would last longer, but this is probably inevitable. I'm just appreciative of the in depth conversations I do have here amongst the vitriol.
I'm impressed so far too, and I think that nice communities can be cultivated, but very large, general purpose communities are just gonna have mosh pits in the comments sections
I'm just against authoritarianism. If you support or worship tyrants past or present, then you're no friend of mine.
I don't think it is as black and white as you say though. In general I have faced more bigotry from modern conservatives than I have from leftists. At the same time though the unironic worship of the Soviet Union, or communist icons like Mao and Che leave a bad taste in my mouth. One killed millions of his own people and waged a cultural genocide against traditional Chinese culture and the elderly. Che on the other hand was a homophobic bigot who attempted to eliminate the queer people from Cuba. I understand criticizing Capitalism, and having faith in an economic system that has TBF never been implemented in the way Marx or Ingles would've wanted, but to worship the regimes that took the label and did horrible things in its name? I believe in learning from the past rather than trying to recreate it. If communists really want to succeed, they need to stop emulating a failed past, and push towards a new direction.
I like the concepts of Anarchism. Rather than being run by a leader or following a bureaucracy,I believe people can come together as a community to provide the basic needs to each other. I am also queer, a believer in science, an atheist, and anything else that could possibly get me labeled as a "liberal". Personally I think things work better in moderation rather than as an all or nothing. I may be an anarchists, but I may share some values with a libertarian or an-cap who believes in capitalism. I'm not about to start a fight over which economic system is better, and will likely rely on them for help and resources. I just hope if we are facing down a tyrant or someone who wishes to do harm to the weak and vulnerable within our communities, we would stand together and help each other out.
I do have what would be considered more leftist tendencies, but I'm not a fundamentalist either. I feel through compromise, and mutual aid is how we as humans have survived since antiquity.
I like the concepts of Anarchism. Rather than being run by a leader or following a bureaucracy
Real communism has no leader or bureaucracy, it is defined as a classless moneyless stateless society. Anarchism and socialism are the steps leading there (by removing capitalism and other hierarchy, making room for equity and equality).
I may share some values with a libertarian or an-cap who believes in capitalism. I'm not about to start a fight over which economic system is better,... I just hope if we are facing down a tyrant or someone who wishes to do harm to the weak and vulnerable within our communities
Capitalism is the biggest tyrant we face and which is actively doing immeasurable harm to the weak and vulnerable within our communities
It literally needs to create entire classes and sub classes of people it labels "weak and vulnerable" to exist
Completely rejecting communism because of failed and often completely misguided attempts to achieve it, while not outright rejecting anyone who supports capitalism which has been achieved and is actively destroying the planet and everything on it , and explaining that with "minimizing harm" is a really terrible take.
The reason I don't call myself a communist is because I feel it has taken on a different meaning than the one Marx and Engels originally assigned to it. The Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, Kampuchia, Cuba, and formerly North Korea have all used the name to describe their governments despite not meeting the criteria by Marx, and they had committed unspeakable evils in its name. I feel utilizing the names, symbols, and legacy of communism without taking the historical weight of them into consideration does a great disservice to the goals of communism. It's why I even refuse to associate with the hammer and sickle, because to many people, that symbol carries as much weight as a swastika or the rising sun.
It's actually pretty late for me, but I do want to continue talking later. I'll even give the reading material a look. I just wanted to air out my grievances with the communist label, and put some context to why I abhor tankies as much as I do fascists.
Are you also against socialism because Hitler called himself a socialist?
Countries like those you named never had actual communism, just like Hitler wasn't a real socialist. What he and the others did - authoritarianism and dictatorship, are contradictory on the most basic levels to communism and socialism (both are about equity and equality, something that cannot exist if there is a ruling class. Leftist economics cannot exist with anything but leftist values, anything else is inherently incompatible).
Do yourself a favour and unlearn some of the anti-communist propaganda you've been socialised with.
There is good reason we call tankies tankies and not communists.
Edit to add: The right has always and continues to co-opt leftist ideas to get in to power, because leftist ideas are actually the popular ones, the problem is when one person or a small group have power, many start off doing it deliberately to get in to power and then abuse it, while others have good intentions but are corrupted by the power they end up with, but either way, once power is centralised in such a way, it is a lot harder to get rid of (it also allows those in power to dictate via the media and the "justice" system who the "in" and "out" groups are to give the people someone to blame that isn't them).
That's where anarchism comes in with its ideas of horizontal organisation (I'll admit I've only skimmed this, so I don't guarantee it's the best source, but that library is a good place to look these things up anyway) which doesn't really give any one individual enough power for them to be able to fuck others over with it.
Anyway, I've mostly taken the time because I've seen you around (not in a creepy way, some avatars just become recognisable after a while) and you seem like you generally "get it" so I'm hoping you're near enough the edge that I can give you the push you need to join us on the dark side 🏴(black is the anarchism flag) (this isn't meant to be as sinister, or condescending? sounding as it came out lol sorry!)
The difference between Hitler and the countries I mentioned is that Hitler already has a word associated with his regime: Nazi. When you here it in public, that is the connection you make. Unfortunately that is the same connection people make with communism and people like Stalin or Mao. Regardless of whether the Soviet Union was truly communist or not, it is the country most people associate with the term. Hell, even many leftists make that association, which is why the Soviet flag, communist leaders, and propaganda prints are featured heavily in many communist memes. I agree that the word communism shouldn't be tied to these regimes forever, but its hard to make a case for reclaiming it when many communist continue to push the association themselves.
Like I said, I mostly agree with the ideal expressed by Engels and Marx, but because of it's association most people make between communism and the the regimes mentioned above, I think we are doing ourselves a disservice by continuing to gather around symbols and iconography many people in Eastern Europe and Asians associate with imperialism, genocide, and tyranny.
I agree with your second point, which is why I do call myself an anarchist. I believe power is an irresistibly corrupting force, and it doesn't matter what the intentions are of the people who seize it, if there is too much of it concentrated in the hands of one person, organization, class, or country, it is going to corrupt them. That is why my ideal world would be one with no states, no large governments, no class divisions. where communities can more or less govern themselves according to their needs, and through cooperation and mutual aid, these communities can keep each other afloat, and stand together in times of need. Overly simplified, Let's say I listen to John Lennon's Imagine, and wish that could be us.
Yeah, and I've seen you around too, and you seem pretty cool, which I why I wanted to carry on this discussion. Forgive me that this thread kinda turned into a communist dunk as that actually wasn't my intention. I was more to show the types of people I usually see arguing in the threads. And no need for the push, I think anarchists are awesome, and its kinda the journey I took from being a conservative to a leftist. There is still a lot I'm learning and trying to unlearn from my past though.
First of all I'm glad you don't think I'm a creep lol but also that you're happy to hear where I'm coming from, I think we'd probably agree on most things..
ow for the messy part lol
The difference between Hitler and the countries I mentioned is that Hitler already has a word associated with his regime: Nazi
Nazi literally stands for "national socialist", which is why I asked in the first place. There are plenty of people today who still argue that hitler was a leftist because of this connection, and think socialism = genocide. That doesn't make socialism actually = genocide though, not because there wasn't genocide, but because there wasn't socialism. It's shifting the focus to the wrong part of the problem.
So while I can understand where your view comes from (that bad people ruined a good name so we shouldn't use the good name anymore) it doesn't actually stand up in the real world - there will always be people with bad intentions who ruin good things (or simply anything they see as a threat to their power) to attempt to make them "unusable" to those with good intentions, playing in to that only benefits them, not you.
Hell, even "democracy" as we accept it today has nothing to do with actual democracy, but instead it exists to maintain the status quo (by providing the illusion of choice between only 2 parties, both of which work for and uphold capitalism)
That is why my ideal world would be one with no states, no large governments, no class divisions. where communities can more or less govern themselves according to their needs, and through cooperation and mutual aid
literally the definition of communism!
the journey I took from being a conservative to a leftist.
this explains a lot, especially the willingness to still hear out capitalists. I come from a liberal home and upbringing, so while I raised to question the status quo (to an extent anyway) I had (and still do) a lot to unlearn, it's not quite as much as someone from a conservative background does, but the fact that you've come this far is pretty fucking impressive and says a lot about you!
I think you would really benefit from reading more in to how capitalist superpowers, mainly the US but not only, have not only propagandised you (everyone) in to a complete misunderstanding of what communism and socialism (and anarchism) are, but have actively interfered in pretty much all attempts at socialism and communism guaranteeing they fail (which is also why so many communist experiments end up so heavily militarised - to defend against encroaching capitalists. If capitalism was abolished communism wouldn't need to constantly be on the defence, leaving less room for dictators to grab power via military means). Here are some starting points:
And just a side note - I'd currently consider myself more of an anarchist than a communist too, mostly because I believe communism will never work if it's being grown from the ashes of (or still actively opposed by) the oppressive and exploitative systems we all know as the default (or have been made to believe it is, anyway). We need to break down the entire way we educate and socialise as a (currently extremely hierarchal) society before we can get to the full blown fully automated luxury gay communism. But I do believe we can get there, and that it is the best way for society to manage itself.
You could say the same thing about the terms democracy and republic, which a lot of those regimes you listed also claim they are. There was a time in the early 1800s of Europe where republic and democracy meant the reign of terror in the French revolution, an association strongly encouraged by the ruling monarchs of the time. They didn’t give up on the term though and they reasserted it’s original meaning of government by the people. You can’t let those in power dictate the words you organize around, because they will just define all of them as bad.
But France wasn't the only example of a republic at that time, and what even inspired the French revolution was the United States establishing itself after breaking away from England. The monarchies and empires of Europe feared republics because by definition, it means a country ruled without a monarch, and there were two successful examples popping up one after another, and inspiring republicans and other revolutionaries all around the world.
The term had negative connotations between monarchs, nobles, and conservatives because to them it meant losing the power they had spent centuries convincing people was their right by God. But to serfs, peasants, workers, and liberals, it was an aspirational term. The politics of the 19th century were defined by European monarchs trying to justify their rule, consolidate as much power as possible, and perpetuate their regimes as long as they possibly could, because many of them could see the writing on the wall.
The issue with the term Communism in the 21st century is it was mostly the poor and the marginalized that suffered under the Soviet Warsaw block, and Asian regimes. They see the symbols of communism and think not of liberation, equality, and unity, but of their former oppressors. There are probably plenty of former officers of officials that are Nostalgic for their Soviet past, one of them is waging a war against Ukraine right now. But to the people who the term is supposed to inspire, it brings pain to many of them.
I understand the appeals of the communist label as a westerner, because ever since the beginnings of the 20th century it has been demonized, almost to the point of seeming cool. Not to mention a lot of the same things the US has criticized the USSR of doing, it was guilty of itself. There will probably be a day when the US fades away as an empire, and all that will remain are its history, its symbols and its legacy. and I hope people are just as critical to those who ignore their history, bask in their symbols and glorify their legacy.
Yes the middle class liberals and some workers viewed republicanism aspirationally but most of the peasents and serfs didn’t. During the French revolution a lot of the peasents resented the republicans in Paris, mostly for religious reasons, shown most clearly in the war in the Vendée. Even after the revolution they were against republicanism. They did like the nationalism of the revolution though. This can be seen in first mass election for president in 1848, Louis Napoleon won by a landslide in the countryside off nationalist fervor with little respect for the republic he would soon overthrow. Even after he failed spectacularly and lost the country the first election after he was ousted saw a majority of conservatives and cryptomonarchists elected. Republicanism didn’t lose its reign of terror association in the countryside until the late 1800s.
With regards to those who suffered it was, like in the reign of terror, mostly political dissidents. Don’t get me wrong they did suffer by the guillotine and the gulag, but your average worker by the 1960s had a middling quality of life. The poor especially had better economic security then they do now. Most of the resentment for the Soviet Union was built up on nationalist and anti-imperial lines. Communism came to represent the Russian imperial apparatus that stood over them. Much like republicanism came to be associated with the French empire during it’s domination over Europe. This is why you see a majority of Russians having favorable views of communism, because taking away the nationalist aspiration the only other upside to the post soviet system was the lack of political repression and quality of life improvements, both of which were promised by capitalism but were never fully realized for the average person.
It’s hard to remove the idea from the foreign power trying to force it on you, but not impossible. It’s just a matter normalizing the term and asserting it’s true meaning, separate from the foreign power that tried to use it as a means for imperialism.
But France wasn’t the only example of a republic at that time, and what even inspired the French revolution was the United States establishing itself after breaking away from England
That is very wrong and not historical correct. However you don’t talk to historians, but think for yourself without evidence or archives so you will never accept that.
Just because I consider myself a leftist doesn't mean I'm a pure communist. If any of my posts have made clear, I am anti-authoritarian first and foremost, and I believe in compromise rather than fundamentalism.
I believe in mutual aid, and pooling resources as a community, but I don't think it works at a state level, hence why many states that called themselves communist failed or implemented capitalism to some degree. There are instances of it working at smaller scales like through certain Native American tribes, and attempts made in Spain during the Spanish Civil War.
As long as you are someone who truly believes in human rights and civil liberties, I'll likely get along with you. I don't care what you label yourself. If you stand against authoritarians, and are there to help the weak and marginalized, I will call you friend.
The unironic worship of the soviet union or communist icons like Mao and Che
Fun how as a leftist who talks to other leftists I’ve never seen this, but literally everybody I’ve ever met that isn’t a leftist parrots this narrative as gospel.
Almost as if leftists don’t actually do that and even the most “liberal” among us are still right wing parrots for whatever narrative furthers the capitalist hellscape
Not sure if huffpost is a site you would consider trustworthy, but anytime you search for Che and the gay community, its quite consistent with the fact he rounded up the gay and other queer people and had them tortured, raped, and killed.
Look I don't doubt your commitment to allying with the queer community, but throughout the history of communism, the queer community has also been persecuted by the likes of the Soviet Union, Cuba, hell even China today. Forgive me if my biggest hang up with the communist label are the regimes and people it's associated with, what they did to people like us.
Do you have anything against these reports though? I can give them a read.
For questions like that pretty much no newspaper is trustworthy.
However you made a claim that is a known propaganda lie, I gave you sources, yet you do not say: “I was wrong, I will delete that sentence from my post and make a disclaimer to it!”, no you try to defend your lie.
You say “while it wasn’t specifically true, you could imagine that over 70 years in some countries of 1.2 billion it might’ve be true somewhere!”
Again, family of mine was prosecuted in the liberal western FRG for homosexuality and sent to prison. 30 years earlier they would’ve ended up in death camps.
Tolerance is a man made construct and part of the unspoken social contract we all (generally) abide by to enable a functioning society. Those who opt-out of the social contract should no longer benefit from it
I’m just over politics on the Internet communities. It’s exhausting and becoming increasingly difficult to avoid.
It’s not about being centrist or whatever: I have my side and strangers on the Internet aren’t going to change that. I don’t want to come to Lemmy or Reddit or whatever platform just to be bombarded by pointless political fights. I deal with that enough in the real world.
I don’t believe that getting into e-fights over one’s political view changes anybody’s view on the world—if anything, it makes people more intolerant of one another. I don’t understand why people don’t use that energy towards something meaningful.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.