Dude you’re on the instance where it is forbidden in worldnews to say “Fuck (a particular country which will remain nameless)”.
Literally the only one. You can say “Fuck the United States” or “Fuck Israel” everywhere on Lemmy, or near enough, which of course is as it should be. But if I start stepping on the wrong massive state actors’ toes from one particular instance…
You can write fuck China on Lemmy.ml if it’s relevant and motivated. The difference is that it’s always obvious why the USA and Israel should be condemned. I think China’s Israel stance is super weak, and I doubt I’d get mod pushback for saying that in an article about how China keeps selling genocide-equipment to Israel during a genocide. Or about how China is pushing for a two-state solution instead of saying Israel is illegitimate and should be dismantled.
If you go “Fuck Cameroon” on an unrelated post, for example this one, a mod would rightly tell you to be civil or at least explain yourself. And if you then justify yourself on a basis of white supremacy or conspiracy theories as you are bound to do, then that reasoning will be rejected.
The difference is that communists accept the need for censorship and are open about why some ideas need to be suppressed. However, liberals hypocritically claim to stand for free speech and claim this is the key differentiating factor between liberal democracies and socialist systems, but only tolerate speech that they deem acceptable.
The difference is that communists accept the need for censorship and are open about why some ideas need to be suppressed.
Because some ideas are so destructive to your whole model that they have to be suppressed, because these models in their practical application are often sort of un-defendable, and so the only option is to have secret police running around shooting dissidents.
It doesn’t mean that liberal democracies don’t fall into the exact same pattern, to some extent large or small. It is in the nature of human power struggle. It’s not innate to any particular political system (or it is innate to all of them because they’re all made of people). The difference is that we don’t celebrate it or make excuses for it. We publish books about what a lie the government is telling, we have a constant struggle between the forces of freedom in the streets and the government trying to stamp it out. Sometimes different factions get the upper hand, or it switches.
The difference, as you brilliantly demonstrated here, is that some of the most thickheaded of communist supporters get themselves turned around sufficiently that they start supporting the government trying to stamp it out. Most sensible people, when the government tells them that some ideas need to be suppressed, and they need to imprison or shoot anyone who’s opposing their power, can figure out that’s a bad thing. You apparently cannot.
The difference is that we don’t celebrate it or make excuses for it.
Except you do constantly make excuses for it, as you brilliantly demonstrated here. You want to pretend that you support more freedoms than communists, but in practice you just champion your own set of capitalist values.
Okay, this is clearly going to be a waste of time. Tell you what: You’re clearly never going to admit that you’re wrong about this, and obviously I can’t force you. It seems like you’re actually sort of enjoying how easy it is just to keep typing “freedom is an illusion anyway and that’s why I had all the opposition shot and that makes perfect sense” and similar things and no one can stop you.
Let’s do this: Tell me a format within which we can have this conversation, and get some kind of feedback or judgement about who it is that’s able to prove their case. If you want to propose a framing of some sort, and go within that, I’m happy to talk about it with you. If not, I think it’s just going to be you insisting that Stalin-style/Trump-style governance is justified until I get bored or frustrated and abandon the conversation.
I’m not a debate pervert. I’ve made my point clearly here already. I don’t need to convince you of anything. The fact that you use Trump and Stalin in the same sentence shows profound ignorance on your part. There is no point attempting to have a discussion with people who have strong opinions on subjects they have no understanding of. I’ll leave you with what the CIA had to say on the subject. I would hope you’d use this as an opportunity to educate yourself, but I know that you will not.
The fact that you use Trump and Stalin in the same sentence shows profound ignorance on your part.
They both aspire to throw their domestic enemies into a network of shadowy prison camps or kill them outright, they both claim the establishment opposition needs to be disposed of, they both claim that censorship is necessary because some ideas are wrong and the leader needs to be in control so he can keep the wrong ideas away. There are some important differences, too, but certainly they belong in the same sentence. Trump’s just a lot less effective, is actually the main difference I see.
There is no point attempting to have a discussion with people who have strong opinions on subjects they have no understanding of.
Sounds good! Let me check your qualifications, that’s a really good point, I did have a sense that there was no point to having this conversation with you, and this sort of gets to the heart of why lol.
What did Stalin have done to most of the KPD members who fled Hitler to the Soviet Union?
Why did the USSR ultimately collapse? What should be done differently to raise up the next massive wonderful communist state? Or nothing, they did everything fine?
Which direction did people generally flee across the Berlin wall? Why?
How would you characterize China’s modern government, in one or two words? Marxist, communist, gangster-capitalist, what?
Funny how freeze peach sublimates directly into censorship vapor the moment liberals lose their cultural hegemony.
Dude you’re on the instance where it is forbidden in worldnews to say “Fuck (a particular country which will remain nameless)”.
Literally the only one. You can say “Fuck the United States” or “Fuck Israel” everywhere on Lemmy, or near enough, which of course is as it should be. But if I start stepping on the wrong massive state actors’ toes from one particular instance…
You can write fuck China on Lemmy.ml if it’s relevant and motivated. The difference is that it’s always obvious why the USA and Israel should be condemned. I think China’s Israel stance is super weak, and I doubt I’d get mod pushback for saying that in an article about how China keeps selling genocide-equipment to Israel during a genocide. Or about how China is pushing for a two-state solution instead of saying Israel is illegitimate and should be dismantled.
If you go “Fuck Cameroon” on an unrelated post, for example this one, a mod would rightly tell you to be civil or at least explain yourself. And if you then justify yourself on a basis of white supremacy or conspiracy theories as you are bound to do, then that reasoning will be rejected.
The difference is that communists accept the need for censorship and are open about why some ideas need to be suppressed. However, liberals hypocritically claim to stand for free speech and claim this is the key differentiating factor between liberal democracies and socialist systems, but only tolerate speech that they deem acceptable.
Because some ideas are so destructive to your whole model that they have to be suppressed, because these models in their practical application are often sort of un-defendable, and so the only option is to have secret police running around shooting dissidents.
It doesn’t mean that liberal democracies don’t fall into the exact same pattern, to some extent large or small. It is in the nature of human power struggle. It’s not innate to any particular political system (or it is innate to all of them because they’re all made of people). The difference is that we don’t celebrate it or make excuses for it. We publish books about what a lie the government is telling, we have a constant struggle between the forces of freedom in the streets and the government trying to stamp it out. Sometimes different factions get the upper hand, or it switches.
The difference, as you brilliantly demonstrated here, is that some of the most thickheaded of communist supporters get themselves turned around sufficiently that they start supporting the government trying to stamp it out. Most sensible people, when the government tells them that some ideas need to be suppressed, and they need to imprison or shoot anyone who’s opposing their power, can figure out that’s a bad thing. You apparently cannot.
Except you do constantly make excuses for it, as you brilliantly demonstrated here. You want to pretend that you support more freedoms than communists, but in practice you just champion your own set of capitalist values.
Okay, this is clearly going to be a waste of time. Tell you what: You’re clearly never going to admit that you’re wrong about this, and obviously I can’t force you. It seems like you’re actually sort of enjoying how easy it is just to keep typing “freedom is an illusion anyway and that’s why I had all the opposition shot and that makes perfect sense” and similar things and no one can stop you.
Let’s do this: Tell me a format within which we can have this conversation, and get some kind of feedback or judgement about who it is that’s able to prove their case. If you want to propose a framing of some sort, and go within that, I’m happy to talk about it with you. If not, I think it’s just going to be you insisting that Stalin-style/Trump-style governance is justified until I get bored or frustrated and abandon the conversation.
I’m not a debate pervert. I’ve made my point clearly here already. I don’t need to convince you of anything. The fact that you use Trump and Stalin in the same sentence shows profound ignorance on your part. There is no point attempting to have a discussion with people who have strong opinions on subjects they have no understanding of. I’ll leave you with what the CIA had to say on the subject. I would hope you’d use this as an opportunity to educate yourself, but I know that you will not.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
I mean it definitely sounds like you are lol
They both aspire to throw their domestic enemies into a network of shadowy prison camps or kill them outright, they both claim the establishment opposition needs to be disposed of, they both claim that censorship is necessary because some ideas are wrong and the leader needs to be in control so he can keep the wrong ideas away. There are some important differences, too, but certainly they belong in the same sentence. Trump’s just a lot less effective, is actually the main difference I see.
Sounds good! Let me check your qualifications, that’s a really good point, I did have a sense that there was no point to having this conversation with you, and this sort of gets to the heart of why lol.
🙄