Internet police here. Stay calm, hands where I can see them. Now, this is how this is gonna go: there isn’t much I can do now as I wasn’t personally here 7 hours ago when you called but I’ll make sure to jot down some loose notes on this here notepad while I take your declaration. Then I’m gonna go ahead and misremember it all when I write a report no one will bother to read… Maybe put up some cameras around for next time, I don’t know. Just remember, we’re here to help.
That’s kind of what you want, though. A big enough operation that it probably won’t just disappear or start enforcing really arbitrary and unreasonable rules, but small enough that it’s not like lemmy.world.
Imagine using phones. Fucking cringe. Back then, we did actual cool things like randomly getting drafted and shipped to Vietnam. Kids these days… SMH my head
Do you remember when you walk there’s punji sticks everywhere? And also do you remember when you were singing while taking a piss under the trees it suddenly became a duo? Such a fun time
My days on the Opie and Anthony reddit has given me good tone reading.
Fun racism and non fun racism. If it’s ugly in tone they’re racist. Remember Patrice or maybe Louis ck joking about how “jew” is both the normal term for Jewish people and the slur depending on the tone of how you say it. Reminds me of that but harder to tell with text.
I miss his FX show. He’s a great comedian. Glad he came out and apologized and even made fun of himself a bit. I don’t believe in eternal damnation of public figures like that unless people get physically harmed.
I never understood the backlash on this one. He had their consent, and he wasn’t even their boss or anything. He was also younger and not as famous. Asking coworkers for sexual stuff is weird af, but is about it. They consented, so I guess he read the room correctly back then.
They consented to what they thought was a poor attempt at humor from someone in a position of power over them, boss or not, and then often were blocked in the room while he did it, y’know, against their consent.
I really hope that’s not your only understanding of how “consent” works when you’re peer pressured by a hero in a position of power over you.
Never heard anything about being blocked in the room, I would appreciate the sources on this if you have them. Also, I would appreciate if you could elaborate what power exactly he had on anyone at this point.
No need to be snarky about my definition of “consent”, obviously we disagree on the dynamic of the situation, not the definition of consent.
In what fucking universe does the director of an absolute bomb have power over a lifelong actress?
Louie right after the disaster of pootie pie was quite a bit different than Louie at the height of his career.
It was a weird moment, and it is tangentially related since he is an example of a guy who got inordinately horny the moment he felt a connection with a woman he felt was a kindred, but what happened with Louie is quite a bit different than what happened with Weinstein or Cosby. It’s quite arguable that he had less power in that exchange.
That people mix these things up says something about society but I’m not sure what.
Oh man. That subreddit was a fucking trip. I followed it for a while, and couldn’t believe how the hosts would interact with them. Some absolute crazy people on that sub
Well, Nazi existed before the internet and would exist without it. They didn’t wait for the internet to enable themselves. There can’t be zero downside for having a 100% free platform, I do agree.
Yeah but Nazism spread via propaganda, which is what dogwhistling is a form of.
The Internet is the largest spreader of propaganda that humanity has ever seen, so it’s not surprising that it helped revitalize neo-nazism and fascism is general. It also served to make satire and actual radicalized behavior harder to detect. A lot of the time, 4chan boards use this “edgy satire” format to normalize the behavior (to an extent). See: the “MAP” misinformation campaign they did and how it reinforced actual pedophilia and demonized LGBT groups
Nah. Your definition of a Nazi is just anyone right of Mao. This place seems to be where the tankies went after getting banned from Reddit for encouraging violence toward people who don’t want to slob on government’s massive boot.
Lemmy seems to be more middle-left with just a few vocal extremists on both sides, actually. If anything the largest ‘extreme’ group i’ve seen here is anarchists, kind of the opposite of communists lol.
And the groups that do turn into a bunch of ‘tankies’ (slowly stares at Lemmygrad) have been defedrated across almost the entire fediverse…
I think you’re correct honestly but with Lemmygrad defederated like the exploding-heads people they surely make mainstream accounts for the sake of their lunacy being interacted with.
Maybe it’s my instance of choice but I sure do see a ton of people with authoritarian views pretending they’re just simply leftists when they’re just as unhinged as Qtards.
This instance (lemmy.ml) is one that still federates with lemmygrad, last I noticed. Even then, although the number of unhinged tankies I see here is non-zero, it still isn’t large. (In fact, it’s mainly one particular user that stands out. Y-something, with a name using a bunch of stylized high-unicode characters.)
When I’m on lemmy.world, which I think has defederated from lemmygrad, I pretty much don’t see them at all.
Frankly, I don’t think they’re bothering to try to insert themselves in lemmy.world.
What is marvellous about stupidity and shady morals is that they’re not exclusive to one political colour.
I guess you might be from the US : talking as there is just “the” left and “the” right without nuances and censoring words. I believe it’s something cultural.
Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.
Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).
It's like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.
When people proclaim to be something doesn't make it true.
You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we’ve seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.
A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn’t do it, China didn’t do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.
That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.
Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.
Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there’s no leadership or ranking across its members.
Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.
Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.
There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).
There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.
That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.
In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.
It is not an abstract “I don’t like capitalism so let’s try something different” approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name ‘anarchist communism’ in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.
No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.
different approaches carry a different name
Yeah, well… So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …
So, which one of those is the true communism?
Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.
And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
It’s how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it’s Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx’s mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.
Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don’t bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin’s Russian form of Capitalism with US’s imperialism and French Revolution’s early capitalism together doesn’t make sense either.
He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I’d focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I’d talk about his socialism in one country theory
Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯*(ツ)*/¯
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
Aha, is that so?
I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well
Yeah, you could say that!
So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L’Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.
And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔
Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?
Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.
I’ve got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one “true” communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what “true” communism even is.
Realistically, it would look something like how the Anarchists organized society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or how Rojava is organizing today with communal federations. Anarchism sidesteps the inevitable authoritarian regime that various Marxist theories have by not installing a ‘temporary’ vanguard state that quickly becomes autocratic and dictatorial, they just jump straight to decentralizing power immediately by giving it to the people.
Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.
Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.
Nah, that’s just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.
And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.
This whole “Sounds great but won’t work” rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.
According to www.heritage.org/index/ranking for instance, there are 24 countries in the world with freer economy than USA.
The right wing, climate change denying, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That’s nowhere near an unbiased analysis, but an opinion piece. No one can seriously believe the US to be less “free market” than like half of western Europe.
That’s like asking the North Korean government to create an index of democracy.
And that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry? Insulin is only the price it is because the government enforces the patent that says pfizer is allowed to have a monopoly on it, if other people were able to produce and sell affordable generics pfizer would have to drop their price or go out of business, but if you try the government comes, kidnaps you, and if you resist kidnapping, kills you.
Try to sell a product that the government decides you owe them money for: Weed? Jail. Moonshine? Jail. Weed in a legal state but didn’t break off the 50% protection money to the government? Jail. Unlicensed insulin? Jail. Drawing of a mouse too close to a famous one? Jail.
The US has what is called crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism economy is what the Agorists like SEKIII want (but they refuse to call capitalism arguing that “real capitalism” is crony capitalism and “free market economies” are not “capitalist” at all and is actually leftist in nature.)
Crony capitalism is just capitalism. The agorist free market capitalism is just starting the whole thing over under the mistaken belief that it’ll end up different.
I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.
The functioning of their government is absolutely unequivocally communist. They have allowed some form of capital interests, which I would not consider communist in definition, but the government retains control over nearly all those interests and the plan they’ve put forward from the beginning is to renationalize industries as they reach a point of competitive development with the western world.
In what sense was it not an actual effort? Just because it quickly slid into non-marxism doesn’t say anything about the initial idea of the revolutionaries. Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen with Marxism, and it did every time.
If you are against an authoritarian state, the only viable way to communism is to skip the dictatorship part directly and just have anarchism.
There were no actual efforts to establish communism
Period. Relying on the “temporary” government to relinquish their power is…foolish. If you’re building a system for the greater good, hierarchy will always undermine that goal. Unequal amounts of power does not a just system make.
Most people using an AR buy cheapo 115 grain FMJ to shoot from their $600 AR. Cheap ammo from a cheap AR will group at 5-6 inches shooting with a bipod from a bench with a minute between shots with no wind at that range.
Throw in wind, stress, sub-optimal support, and rapid fire and it’s a very difficult shot.
Which is good and bad. Good in that assassinations should fail. Bad in that it means this asshole was shooting up a crowd.
Are you grouping that at 100 yards? Because I think your barrel is screwed up if that’s true. 2-3 inches on a mass market AR is common from a controlled setup. Of course most people are not as accurate as their gun so if they’re shooting then yeah it can be wild.
My main AR groups better. I’ve got a higher-end AR with a .223 Wylde 1:7 barrel and when I shoot SMKs through it it’ll group a ragged hole. But that’s not the setup most people are buying and shooting.
But my gun is triple the cost of a standard AR-15, and the glass on top is even more expensive.
I mean I think I’d say it was more the result of poor preparation than anything. I think most places are saying he had like, 3 shots or somewhere around there, and apparently his rifle had no optic on it at all, which is kind of an insane idea at that distance. Which I think also maybe lends credence to the idea that this was just some impulse decision rather than a prepared kind of thing. I don’t think it’s that hard of a shot to make in general, even given the single opportunity that you’re going to be working with, I’ve hit soda cans with .22s at similar ranges. You barely have to take into account windage or holdover and I haven’t seen any evidence of heavy wind on the day of, really.
So, I dunno, I think it’s probably just an idiot kid killing himself in like, some elaborate suicide by cop or something. or just a dumb groyper, jury’s still out.
Fools, disney started with killing Disney animation, then it came back, then they killed it again, back alive, dead, alive, dead and now it's a day by day thing.
Denmark looking decidedly not green this morning. It’s sunny, but virtually no wind - might be like this for another week. Check the map regularly to understand why unreliable energy is actually just a way of increasing gas usage.
Okay, where is the comparison to nuclear? For that you have to build massive infrastructure, that costs billions, that no one want to insure, thats why it has to be backed by state money. After that the waste has to be managed by the state too, because no company wants to deal with the liability of radioactive waste for thousands of years at least, so that, too, comes out of the taxpayers pockets.
I don’t like fossil fuels, but this is just plain stupid
(and also as a cherry on top, tschernobyl, fokushima)
You said Denmark had converted to green energy. I pointed out that they haven’t done anything like that. You are now moving the goal posts and saying “where is the comparative essay defending nuclear power”…
If you must, France turned completely green in the 70s. So they’ve provided 50 years of clean energy. Its a classic story and not as simple as I’m going to make out, but still. Look at the map link in the last post - any area that stays green is either using hydro or nuclear. Hydro is great, but you need mountains and water.
But you still claiming nuclear is green is just crazy. There is still no place on earth that can hold nuclear waste. Especially not for the thousands of years that it would need. There is nothing clean about energy, that produces waste, that we can’t even handle.
You’re saying you got out of college ten years ago, and worked for exactly one company that entire time, and you can’t say who it was or what you did because of an NDA?
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.