If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.

Camzing@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 347 points –
555

You are viewing a single comment

and any number of Jewish science fiction writers.

And?

He was one of the first writers to have an African woman

And?

one of the first to have a transman character.

Again... and?

Stop using the word ‘fascist’ for anyone on the Right. It dilutes the term.

All right-wingers walk the same path. If you write fascist drivel, you are a fascist. Heinlein was a fascist. Stop making excuses for him.

How many socialistic writers wrote sci-fi that included Africans and the TG?

Was it back when Stalin outlawed homosexuality and allying with Hitler?

Plenty.

Could you name me one?

let's say before 1950.

Then click the link.

Sorry about that: I didn't realize there was a link; and thanks for making it.

Neither the words "socialist" nor "leftist" appears in that article.

Neither the words “socialist” nor “leftist” appears in that article.

They don't have to because...

The title, Of One Blood, refers to the biological kinship of all human beings.

...sounds perfectly radical to me.

We have a biological kinship with all mammals.

You have to be more specific.

This is not to denigrate her work, and she might have had at least some sympathies with socialists and leftists, but it's probably neither socialist nor leftist in the same way that Rand was ideological, much less "Fascist."

We have a biological kinship with all mammals.

...and deep down we're all just stardust. What is your point?

neither socialist nor leftist in the same way that Rand was ideological,

That's because it's utterly impossible to be "socialist" or "leftist" in the same way Rand was ideological - being an unhinged bootlicker has decidedly never been the point of leftism.

We have a biological kinship with all mammals.

…and deep down we’re all just stardust. What is your point?

You have to be more specific.

That’s because it’s utterly impossible to be “socialist” or “leftist” in the same way Rand was ideological - being an unhinged bootlicker has decidedly never been the point of leftism.

Do socialism and leftism have definitions, and if so, what are they, and did Pauline Hopkins, or her fiction, fit those definitions?

*Leftism" doesn't have a hard and fast definition. An idea can be considered leftist if it threatens the status quo - as opposed to an idea that enforces it (which would be considered right-wing).

Socialism does - a condition wherein the working class controls the means of production. An idea that supports this end can be considered socialist (in our current state) whether the holder of such an idea labels it "socialist" or can even spell the word. Therefore, Christ rejecting the idea that people must go hungry by dividing fish and bread - socialist. Hopkins rejecting the tenets of white supremacism - socialist.

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
11 more...