I rarely see it, but MBFC is an atrocious website that defines bias by distance from the center. It's just nonsense.
I rarely see it, but MBFC is an atrocious website that defines bias by distance from the center. It's just nonsense.
Counterpoint: "Fact checkers" with an institutional bias are an excellent way to cover for lies promoted by those institutions
Fight Club and the countless movies like it, which are character-driven and the character is driven by extremely maladjusted desires and behaviors.
"Alright, but isn't that being ableist in Fight Club's case?"
No, if both of the alters acted like normal people, you'd just have an especially weird buddy comedy with none of the conflict of the original movie.
Are you suggesting the WSJ manufactured a quote by a senior US defense official?
That is probably not what they meant. Usually when a major paper reports a story hinging on a "tip from an anonymous US official" and the story is bunk, it's not because the paper invented the source but because the source was lying according to instructions from the State Dept.
That's just my understanding though, I'm not trying to say this with any authority. I furthermore have no opinion on this story and will wait for more substantial reporting on it.
Well, you can look at it as the rags in question being more inclined to receive such claims with uncritical credulity if they say something like "CCP bad," etc. They don't need to lie, and in fact strategically shouldn't (though some of them countenance an alarming amount of direct lying, here I am thinking of the NYT), they can just accept what they are told by the US government, which obviously dings itself by lying but a) with the source being anonymous, how will you pin it on them without the receiving journalist destroying their career by revealing an anonymous source? and b) they're the US government, it's already kind of understood that they have a record of lying, but their position of power nonetheless acts as a sort of font of credibility, especially to US citizens.
The liberals fucking won that election and it was the liberal Hindenburg appointing Hitler to the Chancellorship that facilitated his rise to power, not anything the KPD did. This is disgusting historical revisionism that a search engine could dispel in 5 seconds, but you choose to warp history to make it look like Hitler actually won the election and make the liberals who enabled him seem blameless. It is, in effect, apologia for Nazi collaborators. Exactly appropriate for someone shilling for Dems while they gleefully subsidize genocide.
Speaking as a Marxist, this is false. Capitalism was once the historical progressive force against feudalism. This was already waning two centuries ago, but it was not always true.
Nazis shouldn't be able to do what they want on their own instances either, they should be crushed there as they should in every space
But also blacklisting is a basic first step that everyone should do, so you aren't wrong there.
In defense of some instance admins, I think they can just literally not know because it's hard to keep tabs on every instance that gets made, but that also means that, if you use that instance, you should totally DM them to let them know (I've had to do this with certain other instances). If the admins persistently ignore those warnings, they should be treated as complicit.
Meanwhile anarchist organizing doesn't have cops, it has Agents of Community Defense who definitely aren't cops!
I have nothing against anarchists, but you need to see past slogans to be anything but a useful idiot to neoliberals.
That's an easy one, conservatism came first because it preceded the founding of the US and was championed by many in the Continental Congress.
Yes, but you're going to need to find a way to think beyond that, because both parties understand that it's in their interests to oppose rcv, so "vote democrat until we get rcv" effectively means "vote democrat forever".
Fundamentally, there is a limit to the extent that a capitalist democracy will tolerate actual democratic power, because eclipsing the power of capitalists obviously means threatening their position. They will not sit idly by and allow their power to be voted away.
and there’s apparently nothing to be done to fix it in our lifetimes,
This really isn't true, and treating it as true will lead to a much nastier future than "it feels really hot out most of the time". It has implications for agriculture and ecological collapse, with entire societies being destroyed and some of the more privileged ones turning to eco-fascism. It's a much darker future than you give it credit for, but also much less inevitable.
I always thought that communism has been proven not to work multiple times throughout history.
The more accurate lesson would be that communist nations have been defeated by capitalist hegemony multiple times throughout history, mainly during the Cold War; the countries didn't just implode of their own accord. Now, it's fair to criticize them for this, if you have an ideology all about material conditions and then you aren't able to survive those conditions, you probably messed up, but I think that's a very different assertion from "communism doesn't work".
Patents are not, at their core, a good thing. They are nice for an idealized and transient scenario, but the reality of capitalism is that the vast, vast majority of investment, production, etc. are done by a handful of large companies, and that includes R&D. Patents are, in reality, overwhelmingly one of the many tools large corporations have to shut out upstarts. In short, it entrenches the power of monopolies, trusts, and similar large businesses.
And that's without even starting on how the law can be abused and, with the way our legal systems work, it is fundamentally more abusable for the side that has more money and can afford top corporate lawyers to concoct convenient arguments, leaving little Jimmy in the dust.
If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?
The general line according to Stalin (e.g. in "Foundations of Leninism") was that there should be thorough and exhaustive debates among those with differing opinions within the Party but that, once a resolution was reached by a vote following the debate, further fighting on the topic as a Party official was essentially a form of wrecking, though of course matters were revisited periodically (for good and for ill). Even if you disagreed, you were then expected to go along with whatever the motion was in the interest of the integrity of the Party as an actor. This was "Diversity of opinion, unity of action" [edit: I got the motto slightly wrong, see cowbee]
I don't really have a developed opinion on it (I guess I should have left this to cowbee for that reason) but I definitely have sympathy for this approach when I look at it in the context of glory hounds like Trotsky being constantly contrarian for the sake of political brinkmanship instead of, you know, acting in good faith and believing in things besides that he should be top dog. There shouldn't be tolerance for people like that, and the long-term harm that Trotsky's opposition bloc did to the SU is hard to fathom.
I disagree about sortition, but I appreciate pushing back on elitist, misanthropic bullshit like you did. I think elections with a strong ability to quickly recall faithless representatives is a much better solution because it involves the decision-making of the whole community, rather than a community member chosen at random.
Seems like campaign finance reform is a more pertinent question then.
where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks
citation needed
Slavery looks a lot more popular when you don't let the slaves vote. If the slaves could vote -- i.e. if there was a greater degree of democracy -- there would surely be no slavery. It was the repression of the political power of a large segment of the population that enabled slavery.
Surely, if we educate people on class consciousness, they will generally act in alignment with the common interest, right prole? Certainly it's not a better solution to dictate morality to them unilaterally through some technocratic institution (that's rather like what the aristocracy was), because we have no particular way of ensuring that they will act in the common interest -- which is not especially their interest -- unlike the common people, for whom the common interest is their interest.
You probably want to replace "atheism" with "antitheism" in that context. I would disagree either way, but I think you'd have a point with antitheism.
The Nazis had also tried to overthrow the government once by that point, so making a coalition that included the Nazis is no less backing "an enemy of the Weimar Republic". The difference is, of course, that one is an enemy to capitalism and the other is an enemy of communism. It's no wonder that liberals would choose the latter.
In fact i believe if you give attention seekers a platform, they will continue to seek attention
Awesome, so you agree with the obvious conclusion that we should take their platform away by blacklisting them, right? . . . Right?
There might be another Capitol Riot-style clownshow, but like the first time, nothing of real significance will happen. A few zealots and or cops might die, but nothing rising to the level of a "blood bath", let alone a "civil war".
I don't think Trump was being literal when he said bloodbath though. It's a common English idiom.
both the Communist and the Nazis were against democracy
This is ridiculous, the Communists opposed the Weimar Republic, but they absolutely supported democracy. In their view, in fact, they supported a much more authentic form of democracy by extricating private interests from the process.
Hindenburg used decrees to work with the Nazis so they could form a government.
We keep glossing over this "liberals siding with Nazis" thing
The Communists however never tried to work with the democratic forces.
I really think the word you're looking for here is "liberal"
Point should be obvious.
You're making significant assumptions, such as any of the liberals actually being willing to work the with the Communists, which would be a hell of a change for the SPD after that business with the Freikorps. Otherwise, the argument is just "join the SPD" and assume that they can bring their voters with them while completely abandoning their revolutionary project and putting themselves under the discipline of a liberal party. I feel that this is something of a muddy issue that you're interpreting in a convenient way.
"Aren't you as well?" Fair question, and there's a lot about this situation that I can't speak to, but what I said before I am completely sure holds, which is that Hitler gained power, on the most proximate level, because of liberal collaborators.
Is this the sort of thing you're looking for?
Within a few weeks after the 13th Congress Pravda published Stalin’s report…. Stalin’s report also contained an attack on Zinoviev, though without naming him:
“It is often said that we have the dictatorship of the party. I recall that in one of our resolutions, even, it seems, a resolution of the 12th Congress, such an expression was allowed to pass, through an oversight of course. Apparently some comrades think that we have a dictatorship of the party and not of the working class. But that is nonsense, comrades.”
Of course Stalin knew perfectly well that Zinoviev in his political report to the 12th Congress had put forward the concept of the dictatorship of the party and had sought to substantiate it. It was not at all through an oversight that the phrase was included in the unanimously adopted resolution of the Congress.
Zinoviev and Kamenev, reacting quite sharply to Stalin’s thrust, insisted that a conference of the core leadership of the party be convened. The result was a gathering of 25 Central Committee members, including all members of the Politburo. Stalin’s arguments against the “dictatorship of the party” were rejected by a majority vote, and an article by Zinoviev reaffirming the concept was approved for publication in the Aug. 23, 1924 issue of Pravda as a statement by the editors. At this point Stalin demonstratively offered to resign, but the offer was refused.
-Medvedev, Roy. Let History Judge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989, p. 144
This is from an explicitly anti-"Stalinism" book showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.
For the record, I do think that historical texts by "comrades," as you sneer, can be interesting and insightful, but I mostly concern myself with texts by liberals (or otherwise anti-communist ideologies) because I know those are the only ones that won't be rejected out of hand.
I've always really loved Zarbon. He has a cool design that fits his snobbish attitude and then when he sacrifices his looks to transform into his grotesque true form, to was a good foreshadowing of Frieza.
Also the Ginyu Force, of course. Ginyu himself is great and even the oft-overlooked Guldo is pretty interesting (and DBZ needs more weird bullshit powers like his).
It's certainly true that politicians and the owning class oppose environmental action very strongly, but that doesn't make it hopeless. We, the working class, are the basis of their power and wealth; we concretely have the power to force them to cooperate or topple them entirely. Clearly, the enviromental movements aren't that strong yet, but they are getting stronger and the decaying environment will provide a basis for accelerating their growth as more people like you and I begin to take these issues seriously.
The moment it makes waves on even a local level, one or both major parties would begin to invest resources in crushing it wherever it appeared.
If making a given ruling is political, it stands to reason that a contrary ruling would also be political. It's not like slavery is political and abolition is apolitical, it's just that one has a positive character and one has a negative character (in the mathematical sense).
Some things are dangerous to the people and political, some things are beneficial to the people and political. We should support a system that encourages judges to do promote the latter.
If you think Castro is worse than Harris, you've been successfully duped by your masters.
Yes, it did, though vestiges still remain. That's what the French Revolution overwhelmingly was, the bourgeoisie claiming power over the old feudal nobility and the monarchy (as anything but a figurehead). Also the American revolution and many others.
They resemble each other because they are in all cases the "owning class" claiming the seat as the "ruling class", just as the slaveholders of classical antiquity and the patriarchs of pre-historical agrarian/pastoral societies.
It's kind of a tangent, but in explaining the concept of equality, Lenin discusses some of the differences between feudalism and liberal capitalism in a letter here.
There are places such as Thailand and Bhutan where the struggle is still alive between the two modes of production, but those are the very rare exceptions to the global order of liberal capitalism (in various forms) vs whatever you want to call the theocratic capitalism of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. vs the state socialism of the PRC, Cuba, etc.
It was the other user who mentioned God first, maeve was just replying to it
I think it's that a Chinese company owns significant stake in them. I agree that they certainly aren't improving the platform
I apologize about the language bit. I rarely get a liberal arguing about this who wouldn't use such a term as "comrade" derisively.
Anyway, I explained the reason I shared it, which is that it is:
showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.
But that's not precisely what you asked for, I just don't have a good source on your real question.
You'll probably need to think beyond liberal dogma if you want to solve a problem with liberalism. "Paying for something is speech and therefore unimpeachable" is an insane thing to take as a fundamental element of how society is run when the end result is so obviously and demonstrably the rich using that ruling (which was always made for them) to buy elections.
People want to find some policy wonk solution to these fundamental problems ("Oh! Sortition fixes everything! Wait, maybe a parliamentary system. Ooh, ooh, how about . . .") but they are just red herrings, silly schemes that distract you from critical thought about the assumptions that brought you here.
I'm unimpressed. The US has crushed rebellions from its inception, famously including the civil war but also many other attempts, and I would say that the patterns of what some call the New Afrikan nation within the US to revolt, going solidly up to the 1980s or further depending on your interpretation, are perhaps the most important.
As some guy said, "Revolution is not a dinner party" and establishing and maintaining a revolutionary state requires its own violence. No Marxist says otherwise, as it is the famous quote of Engels: "The proletariat uses the State not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the State as such ceases to exist."
Thankfully they had the evidence pinned for some time:
Beehaw is a community of individuals and therefore does not have any specific political affiliation.
Later:
Some of the instances that we have chosen to defederate with have explicit political stances and ideologies. Their political stance and ideology had nothing to do with the choice to defederate. The choice to defederate was based on the amount of hate speech present on the instance and/or explicitly endorsing it.
And there's more but you can just read it yourself:
https://beehaw.org/post/524300?scrollToComments=true
Obviously I support cracking down on hate speech, you can see my activity throughout this thread, which consists entirely of me doing that while taking maybe two or three asides to knock beehaw when someone else mentioned it. What I don't support is taking the absurd position that it's not a political stance.
Of course, this all works as an excellent bit of smoke and mirrors for an audience of credulous radlibs to whom you don't want to confess you are splitting with instances that are decidedly to your left -- such as Hexbear.net , the only instance which actually has site-mandated use of self-identified pronouns, which was put on the blacklist pre-emptively before it had federated with anyone (and it still hasn't) for reasons that the userbase are left to conclude are "hate speech" or its "endorsement".
And I said nothing because it was an entirely correct thing to do
This is ridiculous. "Politics" cannot be in the driver's seat because "politics" is not an entity. Domestic capital legally falls under the jurisdiction of the government, but that does not mean that it is actually at the mercy of the government. Capital since before the country was even founded has owned the vast majority of politicians and dictated the way that the government is organized and the laws it passes. That's why people without land couldn't even vote at first and why we still retain a senate, which is 100% just a body for checking the power of people who do not own land versus those who own a lot of land.
It's an understandable mistake regardless, but just for your reference, the "What is your story?" at the end informally indicates it only wants affirmative answers because that's how you'd have a "story" to tell in this regard. There are often hints like that in a question like this.