There’s just no point. Literally no one among the communists I’ve seen cheers on killing dissidents just because. Fascist collaborators, sure, but not mere dissidents. You’re just inventing people to disparage.
There’s just no point. Literally no one among the communists I’ve seen cheers on killing dissidents just because. Fascist collaborators, sure, but not mere dissidents. You’re just inventing people to disparage.
Almost like “tankies” don’t have some religious reverence for “authority” but in fact specifically believe it should be directed in a certain way . . .
I think so? I’ve been blind before but I thought I remembered “agenda” being on there too.
My issue was the “gorillion”, not the 20. There are other options like, idk, “bazillion” that work just as well, or just a nice simple “trillion” for the absurdity.
Missing “totalitarian,” “red fash,” something or other about Tibet, and of course no food holodomor
Pick a fake number that isn’t used by Holocaust deniers
He shares a handful of views, but overwhelmingly is a psychotic cult leader and social chauvinist. You are unlikely to get anything but uniform hatred towards him here.
Philosophy has a tendency to need to use very specialized language to avoid problems of ambiguity and to precisely identify concepts that have no reason to come up in the vast, vast majority of conversation among laypeople.
I wouldn’t go that far. Intelligence is still a physical phenomenon produced by highly complex and somewhat varied systems. There’s going to be different levels of intelligence, like there are different levels of empathy, of strength, of immunity, and so on. Strong evidence would be needed to counter this. That doesn’t mean people don’t exaggerate these differences, look at them too uncritically, or misunderstand both what they are and their origins (which are mostly in child-rearing).
What is more likely bullshit is the concept of “general intelligence” or “G”, which is basically an illusion of statistical question-begging that has been very useful to phrenologists and basically no one else.
There were also neoliberals in there, on all the same subs as the anarcho-bidenists and arguing parallel to them as long as the anarcho-bidenists didn’t ever mention a positive alternative. Really makes you think.
That’s hard to say, since the meme began in China, but the widespread adoption in the US probably was connected to racist appeal
A lot of the xinnie the pooh edits are racial caricature, ironically enough (skin tone)
BuGiJu was doing a great job of contributing constructively from what I remember. Absolute bullshit on the mods’ part. StalinsMoustache was correct but a bit low-effort and antagonistic, so it was to be expected (though I obviously don’t support it).
At least it was only two days for the former, but still bullshit
Do as you will, I just suggest not conflating the two in the future. I think if anything communicating a passionate disdain for people like Beehaw’s lying admins (along with Democrats, Republicans, Blairites, etc) would be a positive for new user interest.
How is that hate speech? Saying you hate an admin team is not hate speech
How are they leaning towards tone policing?
The rules lean towards “civility” over the actual content of what is said, which left it vulnerable to “just asking questions” types. It’s being revised after a spat with a TERF who took advantage of those rules.
There’s a very conscious effort from the radlib cliques to close off lemmygrad
You’re failing to understand that the interest of “tankies” is in democracy being enforced by a proletarian control of the state. The copypastas you were getting were poor communication but they had a point.
The fact that you’re comfortably arguing in parallel with blatant neoliberals should give you pause, or are you going to tell me they are less of a concern because they are not “authoritarian,” because when people are richer than God and control immense swaths of production and politicians themselves while skirting regulation to fuck over the workers their class made desperate by enclosing the commons, that is not “authoritarian”? This whole thing seems kind of bankrupt to me as far as political theory goes. The mechanisms of control are diffused by various means into the economy and divided among the public/private sector, but if the private sector owns the public sector (and it does) you’ve got a class of kings who only half-pretend they aren’t (Zuck deliberately getting that Caesar haircut is a tell).