FrenLivesMatter

Pilot a drone and use it to blow up 9 kids

I don't wear any watch at all. Time isn't real, it was invented by capitalists to sell more watches.

Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You're killing millions of potential babies!

Not the guy you're responding to, but you have a point. Coincidentally, most religions are also against both, so at least you can't accuse them of being inconsistent on the issue of reproduction.

It's from Thailand so likely Buddhism.

Needs a Spongbob style "5 minutes laturrr" voiceover between the 3rd and 4th panel.

See, Microsoft cares so much about you they'll even make a backup of all of your emails, completely for free, without you even having to ask. And here you are complaining...

Freddy Mercury did.

Almost had me with that. Glad you decided to put that /S at the end.

The big issue with "trying" communism is that it historically has only really occurred through violent revolution. The political instability in these situations gives a perfect opportunity for the seizing of power by exactly those kinds of people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that violent revolution is exactly what Marx said was essential in order to bring about the communist utopia he envisioned. That's precisely why communism has such a bad rep among anyone but edgy teenagers and college students. Are you telling me Marx was wrong about this? If so, please elaborate.

To be fair, the Bible says nothing about having to follow the pope in order to get to heaven.

In fact, one could even argue that Jesus would not have approved of such an institution, because in Matthew 23:9, he explicitly says this:

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Meanwhile, the verse that the Catholic church bases the legitimacy of the papacy on (Matthew 16:18) is far more vague:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

I'm on Windows 11 and it opens PDF files in Edge by default. While I find it kind of silly to use a web browser for that purpose, the built-in PDF reader is actually fairly good, it can even read your documents out loud using text-to-speech.

People from Seattle eating Dick's will never not be funny.

I hate how common this form of outrage peddling has become in the so-called news but I guess it sells clicks.

And Dr. Schwab said "you'll own nothing and you'll like it" (nuh-uh)

"Then why's you broke yet? Man, choose violence."

My bad. I fixed it.

Indeed, Preview really is excellent. Does almost everything you'll ever need and nothing you don't.

Yup, and whether the modem on the other side was able to reach the same data rate as well.

It's because people somehow keep believing that voting for some politician is magically going to solve all their problems for them. It won't. Things might get better for a little while if they actually DO end up passing some law that happens to work in your favor, but in the grand scheme of things, you're better off not waiting for them to do anything and working to solve your own problems instead.

This goes for the left and the right BTW. Both have an unhealthy obsession with this sort of mindset.

And which rule do you reckon I broke?

violence isn't part of democracy itself.

That’s where you wrong, because violence IS part of democracy, since the majority gets to inflict its will on the minority (or at least choose representatives who will do so on their behalf) via the use of the police, who are authorized to use any violence necessary in order to get people to comply with the laws.

If communism doesn’t have any plans for achieving their goals without the use of police (or violent enforcers by any other name), then it stands to reason that it will just be violence-based as that which is it seeks to replace, and therefore just as prone to causing inequality among people, regardless of its intentions.

As I said before, violence will never lead to peace, at best you will get a temporary truce whenever people are tired of fighting. But it will always be prone to erupt again. That’s why I don’t support communism. And yes, I don’t support democracy, monarchy, or dictatorship either, for the same reason.

As a Christian, I agree with this idea and I also find the proposed law rather silly because it's the same kind of virtue signaling that conservatives love to accuse liberals of.

What I don't understand is why the article considers this "standing up for LGBT+ rights". Can anyone help me with that?

Well I'm glad we can at least agree that genocide isn't ideal and generally a suboptimal way to solve any problems.

Of course I have a right to tell her that, whether or not she actually does it, or whether I have the right to violently enforce my opinion on her is an entirely different matter. But we were just arguing hypotheticals in this thread anyways.

FWIW I’m not convinced that banning abortion is the solution, but neither that making it easier and safer to access solves any problems, because neither do anything to address the root cause of why women feel like they need to have any abortions at all (excluding those necessary for medical reasons of course).

But sure, I’m clearly the petulant child here that’s out of my depth, because an intelligent person would have no problem seeing such nuances instead of resorting to politically popular catch phrases.

And it’s funny, isn’t it, because women tell men all the time what they ought to do with their bodies (go to work, make money, provide for the family, share the housework, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, the list goes on), yet as a man, I’m supposedly not allowed to even have an opinion what what a woman should do with hers? I’m sorry, that just sounds like blatant sexism, but I’m sure that as long as it’s in favor of women, you’re perfectly happy accepting that.

Yeah, I’m afraid that’s just an ad hominem, not an argument.

And no, I don’t have a problem figuring out where you stand on the issue, but since you apparently can’t even defend your position without resorting to insults, this seems to be a clear case of “you can’t reason anyone out of an opinion which by reason they never acquired”.

Not as ridiculous as you, who, having made no arguments whatsoever, just comes barging in two days later just to give their opinion on the matter.

You're working on the assumption that violence just creates random inequality whenever it occurs, rather than that the use of violence in our current system is a tool used with intent to maintain the status quo.

Well, you’re working on the assumption that violence CAN be used to create both inequality and equality, it just depends on who is using it. Since it’s obviously nonsensical to argue that it’s literally the person that’s making the difference (otherwise, monarchy could potentially do just as good a job at creating or maintaining equality as communism could), it must be the intention behind the use of violence that makes the difference.

That leads to the unproven assertion that it is the intention of capitalism to create unjust inequality, when instead the intention is to allow people to freely choose their employment or source of income based on what they do best, and reward people based on how much they contribute to society.

Sure, you can say that maybe that used to be the case at one point and it’s all gone out of whack since then, but that would only prove that intention doesn’t guarantee outcome, hence there would be no reason to assume that communism would have any better chance at creating a better outcome for everyone in the long run.

Deciding we shouldn't make any change to our economic system because police would still be necessary is, frankly, an absurd stance to take. To be clear, communism is not an alternative to democracy, it's an economic not political system, though of course its ideals do align with democracy.

If communism isn’t a political system, why does it require a revolution in order to implement? If it’s only about economics, then it should be possible to implement on a smaller scale (say, a single company) in any political system. And if it is so clearly superior to capitalism, then such a company would outperform its competitors and naturally lead to a proliferation of communism that way, because most or all of its competitors would end up adopting it. Yet you never see any communists arguing for that sort of approach, it’s always “smash everything with fist first and then rebuild from the ashes”. That’s why I can’t help but feel like violence is, in fact, the whole point.

So you don't support any political system? Or do you have some magic solution in which everyone magically lives in harmony?

Neither. I don’t support any political system because politics is simply arguing about who gets to point the gun at whom. Any political solution to anything always involves violence. And I don’t have a magical solution either because the only alternative I see is to educate people in order to help them realize this, in the hopes that one day, enough people will see that there can, in fact, never be a political solution without violence, and therefore stop looking for such solutions and instead work together to try and resolve their disputes on their own instead of looking for another powerful man with a gun to get them what’s theirs.

Oh, okay, I think I see what you meant now, excuse me for misinterpreting that.

No, I have never reported anyone for saying “eat the rich” or anything like that, nor would I, because I don’t see it as a credible or immediate thread. I understand that it’s usually just meant as a metaphor; it’s people blowing off steam or venting their frustration, not a suggestion to resort to immediate cannibalism.

I honestly don’t think I’ve ever reported anyone on social media, unless it was spam or advocating for child rape. I might report doxxing if I ever came across it but it hasn’t happened so far. Does that answer your question?

It means I read the rules for this forum and I don't see how I broke any of them in any way that would be significant enough to warrant a mod to take action.

I was respectful and didn't use any harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic like race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion. Unless you want to argue that communism is a religion, which would be quite funny given its stance on religion as a whole.

None of what I said was illegal, nor was it spam, porn, NSFW, or not matching the theme of the community (genocide is, after all, at least mildly infuriating). I also didn't encourage harassment, I just stated some facts and provided proof, and I had a good faith discussion with everyone who responded without resulting to name calling or insults, or following people around the site or anything like that.

If a mod wants to disagree with any of that, that's their prerogative I guess, but it would only prove that communists have a very thin skin and are allergic to any amount of criticism, no matter how factual. Genocide is bad, doesn't matter what color of coat it's wearing or what flag it's waving.

Unfortunately, unless you also follow the Bible to a larger degree than they do, it makes you just as much of a hypocrite.

Yes, I know, but what do you expect me to say when you don't respond to any of my other arguments?

You realize that getting upset over this isn’t helping to prove your point, right? If anything, it proves you’re out of arguments and you think you can bully me into into accepting your point of view.

Sorry, not going to happen.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Marx passionately and repeatedly made the case that violence and inequality in a capitalist system are intrinsically connected, i.e. that a capitalist system requires violence in order to enforce and maintain the inequality that is present. But you (and Marx) also say that communists can (and should) violence to bring about equality.

My question, therefore, is simply this: if inequality is the result of violence, how can communism ever hope to achieve equality in the future by using the same means that it claims causes inequality in the present? That’s simply fighting fire with fire. If their violence justifies our violence, our violence will justify theirs. And on and on it goes. No amount of violence will ever stop violence. It just won’t.

ACAB isn't some international stance the left takes. It's a reaction to the frequently racist, violent and corrupt policing specifically in the USA. And it certainly doesn't mean there should be no law enforcement whatsoever - you'd be extremely hard pressed to find anybody who would take that stance.

Right. As usual, when you press people on it, they'll end up admitting that none of their principles are really absolute and they're always willing to make an exception as long as it's in their own favor.

Counterexamples: the British suffragette movement (which was notably extraordinarily violent, despite its common modern image as a quiet, polite disagreement), the American civil war, the Swedish coup of 1809, the Ukrainian defensive resistance in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war.

Not super familiar with examples 1 and 3, but would you say that violence against women remains an ongoing problem in the UK? Has there really been no political violence in Sweden since 1809? I don't think I even need to point out that America remains an extraordinarily violent society according to leftists (and even many people on the right) or that there literally still IS war in the Ukraine to this day.

"Violence begets more violence" doesn't mean that violence will always continue to escalate (if it did, we'd clearly all be dead already), it means that violence never ends violence. At best, all of its victories will be temporary. All you ever get is a momentary truce once everyone is tired of fighting, but as soon as they recuperate, violence is back on the menu.

And just to be clear, I never claimed that violence was the goal of communism, just that communists seem to universally agree that violence is acceptable in order to reach their goals.

As far as the Ghandi quote goes, I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about what he could have meant by this, and the best explanation I can come up with is that he may have sought to differentiate between non-violent action and non-action (which is nonviolent by definition). In other words, if you are being demonstrably mistreated, it's better to stand up and do something about it (even if violent), but it's better yet (even infinitely superior) to do something that doesn't involve violence (like protesting peacefully). Violent resistance in the face of injustice takes some courage, but non-violent resistance takes far more courage yet.

Okay? I never said that he was.

Okay, but you outright ignored my argument about taxing everything over $1 billion and just went back to parroting “eat the rich” instead.

Straight from the manifesto, page 12:

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Accuse me of picking and choosing the most salient passage, but I would say this doesn't leave too much room for interpretation about what the word "forcible" means. And no, you don't get to talk your way out by saying 'overthrowing the status quo via legislation enforced by police would be considered "by force", regardless of whether the police use violence.' Isn't ACAB a quintessentially leftist term? Or does it not apply when the police work for you instead of against you?

Also, just to give a counterexample to your "evil autocrat" problem: Gandhi managed to get rid of British colonial rule without ever advocating for or using violence. So no, the idea that violent oppression justifies a violent response is flawed. Violence always begets more violence, there is literally no exception. You can't murder your way to a fair and just society, it always ends in oppression.

Okay, honestly, would you eat a Bill Gates or Elon Musk? They don't look particularly tasty to me. Bezos maybe, he seems to be in good shape (although likely chock full of steroids), but the vast majority of them are frumpy old dudes or dudettes who probably taste like leather. I don't think that eating them would be particularly enjoyable.

Right. I believe that idea is called socialism, not communism. Unlike communism, which demands a complete overthrow and reform of the system in order to be established, socialists are generally happy to bring about reform within the system by just passing laws requiring various amounts of wealth redistribution.

I'm certainly not against it as long as it doesn't remove too many incentives for people to be able to improve their standard of living by working harder. Having a reasonable social safety system that ensures nobody has to live on the streets unless they absolutely want to certainly seems desirable. And yes the US could probably improve in that area.

Hm, I was under the impression there recently was a package of $100 billion being discussed, but it appears that at least some of that money was supposed to go to Israel, not to Ukraine, and I'm not entirely sure if it ever made it through the house.

As far as what's already been spent, the BBC has reported a total of $46.6 billion as of February 21 this year, and the Council of Foreign Relationships claims a total of $76.8 billion, of which the aforementioned $46.6 billion constitute the direct military aid.

Of the bill mentioned in the first paragraph, $61 billion would supposedly go to Ukraine, so if passed, this would definitely bring the total to over $100 billion. So I regretfully admit to having slightly exaggerated my figures for dramatic effect, and humbly beg for your forgiveness, but least I only missed the mark by a single order of magnitude, and we're still somewhere in the right ballpark.

Okay, thanks for the link, but you act as if that was all I said, and I didn't just make a whole point about how the common denominator in every genocide is almost always the government.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but my goal isn't to win a debate on the Internet, it's to make people realize that any "us vs. them" mentality always inevitably leads to murder and bloodshed, and that any future generations will inevitably look back on it and be horrified, and then they'll be caught in the same dilemma that we are right now, which is figuring out whether violence in the past justifies violence in the presence.

Okay, that was always allowed.