xor

@xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨USA President term limits⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s also worth adding, though, that the convention of only running for at most two terms had existed pretty much since the establishment of the republic (until FDR broke it), when Washington and Jefferson each chose not to run for third terms

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are most mobile games trash?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Plus mini metro, terraria, don’t starve, wild rift, and TFT (last two are free to play, and only have cosmetic transactions)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨This feels wrong. I love it.⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think BAC is supposed to be defined as a right-angle, so that AB²+AC²=CB²

  => AB+1²=0²

  => AB = √-1

  => AB = i

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Truly a tragedy of our times⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Clearly.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Iguanadons⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Get the knife!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are peole hating on .world?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m such a dunce, I didn’t spot your username 🤦

  Thought I was asking a db0 random, not the NaN himself

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are peole hating on .world?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Slightly off topic, is db0 one of the anarchist instances you’re referring to? I know it’s a generally leftist instance, but don’t know much more detail than that

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Academic writing⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s saying that it uses terminology that is well-understood, specific and explicit within the field, but depends on a common understanding of the language used. So people outside the field are unable to understand it, even though they would be able to understand the actual concepts.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨More⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It sounds hot, though

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Lula Brazil is very different from bolsonaro Brazil

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨little hopper⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  And the overreaction of the year award goes to…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Thousands of counter-protesters take to UK streets as far-right unrest fails to materialise⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think you misunderstand the idea - he wasn’t proposing hiring more police, but temporarily increasing the total man-hours being worked to make sure there is sufficient capacity to respond

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨what is with child names like Aiden, Braiden etc?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What’s with your name, buzz?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The taste of 🦅🇺🇲 Freedom 🇺🇸🦅⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This is a knife and fork burger if I’ve ever seen one

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I wish I was as bold as these authors.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Why? This is a scientific paper with a shitpost as the title

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy is the best social media⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  “generally speaking” as in “I pulled this stat out of my ass”

  Calling you a russian bot isn’t exactly a liberal policy, is it?

  If your reasoning for determining someone is “a lib” is saying that, then that’s exactly how you’re using the term.

  The fact you immediately assumed I was a capitalist is a pretty compelling argument that you’re not good at determining people’s ideologies based on their unrelated complaints about your bad takes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy is the best social media⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Criticising liberal policy is absolutely reasonable

  Using “the libs” as a catch-all term for “anyone I disagree with” is the marker of an incoming terrible take

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy is the best social media⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Didn’t mention capitalism, and I consider myself a socialist, but go off

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy is the best social media⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Word “libs” in first 5 words, opinion rejected

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Ah, memories...⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Or - get this - it’s because I’m from a country where having more guns than citizens isn’t considered normal.

  Children aren’t old enough to vote, why the fuck would you think it’s a good idea to give them easy access to ranged, deadly weapons?

  “Gunphobic” is an absurd term, because a phobia implies an irrational fear, so fearing misuse of objects explicitly created for killing things isn’t exactly a “phobia” so much as it is a legitimate concern for the country with the 2nd highest rate of firearm homicides per capita on the planet.

  In my country, we don’t do “school shooting drills”. We don’t have to.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Ah, memories...⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Of course, the solution to children using deadly weapons is to give them to more children. Genius!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What do you do with your time after leaving Reddit?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Listen to some music, perhaps?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  How is turning it off an improvement over lockdown? I was under the impression that the security impact is basically the same

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NASA⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I feel like “moves relative” also understates just how fast it moves: ~19,000mph

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[META] Never change, lemmy.ml⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Have you noticed that almost every argument you have is based entirely on what other things you think communists think, as opposed to anything about what communism actually is?

  Your entire ACAB argument is totally unrelated to both me and communism other than the fact that you’ve decided that’s what communists think.

  Your chain of reasoning was:

  (1) Communists hate police (???)

  (2) Communists only hate police because they don’t work for them

  (3) Police have power

  (4) Power corrupts

  => (5) Communism is bad

  1 & 2 are both just random bullshit you’ve decided is true about communists

  3 is true

  4 is true

  5 is totally unrelated to 1, 2, 3 & 4

  The problem with that is that power always corrupts, not matter how good its intentions

  Well yes, that’s kinda the entire concept of communism. A huge part of its goal to equitably distribute wealth is that it reduces the power imbalance caused by the huge difference in wealth in capitalist economies.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[META] Never change, lemmy.ml⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think it’s also worth considering the impact of different voting systems on this as well, which is hard to do in an experimental way.

  The effect of, for example, first past the post’s 2 party system is hard to know for sure, but almost certainly has a substantial impact on how political views transition over the long term.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[META] Never change, lemmy.ml⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The ACAB BS

  Nah man, I never said that was my stance, and that’s because it isn’t my stance. You brought ACAB up, insisted it was my opinion, and then whined that I disagreed with it. You don’t know me.

  Violence

  I never said that violence ends violence. I merely said that sometimes the result of violence is a better situation than without it. It’s not a simple thing to evaluate, but I would absolutely say that women having the right to vote in the UK is worth the violence they committed, and, additionally, physical violence against them is hugely reduced as a result.

  Violence is sometimes worth it, and deciding when that is the case is extremely difficult to quantify. But writing off an entire economic system because one proponent of it said sometimes it’s worth it is beyond absurd.

  universally agree that violence is acceptable in order to reach their goals

  This is such a terrible reason. Firstly, it’s based on your personal idea of what communists think - I dare say you don’t know many communists based on this, most likely not a single one in person.

  Unless you think that no violence is ever acceptable - I expect it’s unlikely you think Ukraine should stop fighting and hope the Russian army just go home - then you also hold the stance that violence is acceptable in some circumstances.

  The Gandhi quote

  You’ve hit the nail on the head - Gandhi was totally committed to peace and would refuse to commit violence under any circumstances. But he was acutely aware of the fact that violence could be an effective tool against oppression.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[META] Never change, lemmy.ml⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That quote isn’t saying “we should go start some violence for a bit of fun”.

  It’s talking about the exact revolutions that were ongoing during that period (see the section on 1840s geopolitics), and noting that the ongoing revolutions give an opportunity for citizen centred political system - ie a democracy.

  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.

  Violence always begets more violence, there is literally no exception

  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.

  Gandhi was a fantastic and principled man, and had an enormous impact. But, whether or not he liked it, violence was absolutely a part of the end of British colonial rule, and would have been even if every revolutionary was exclusively nonviolent, because the violence by the British was not conditional on violence by the Indians.

  But all of this is separate to the key point - regardless of whether one considers it an effective method of revolution, violence isn’t the aim of a communist system, and it’s use is only considered acceptable in a scenario where that is not the current system, and when it would be the only possible method to overthrow that system.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[META] Never change, lemmy.ml⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Okay - I shall do so.

  You are wrong.

  If you’re going to base your disdain for the entire concept on a single work by a single author, then it would help if you actually read the work itself, rather than deciding what it says based on, I can only assume, something someone you know said offhand that one time.

  So as a starting point, here’s the whole work. Why not do a quick search through for the word “violence” and see if he ever advocates for it (spoiler: he does not).

  However, in his conclusion, he does say this of communists:

  They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions

  This is an interesting passage to interpret - the use of the word force in this passage is fairly vague, for example, overthrowing the status quo via legislation enforced by police would be considered “by force”, regardless of whether the police use violence. This is because it is done not by allowing what Marx calls the bourgeoisie to decide to switch to communism, but by enforcing it through law.

  Now, there’s more to unpack here, so I’ll break it into a couple of sections…

  Revolution

  Marx does use the word “revolution” a lot in his manifesto, however typically not in the meaning you’re envisioning (ie an overthrowing of government) but instead the meaning a fundamental shift in distribution of power and wealth within a society.

  Is violence ever acceptable?

  As a thought experiment, imagine a country ruled by a purely evil autocrat. This theoretical autocrat abuses their power, harms innocent people on a whim and takes whatever they please from their citizens. There is no allowance for dissent, no democracy for the people to represent their interests.

  Would it be acceptable for the people of this nation to use violence to remove this dictator from power? I think most people would probably say yes in this context.

  So we have determined that in some scenarios, violence may be acceptable when it is the only possible way to overturn an oppressive system of government.

  That’s not to say that it’s the only way any system can be changed, or that violence is acceptable when it can be avoided.

  The consequences of violent revolution

  While violent revolution will change the distribution of power, it also provides an chance for opportunists to abuse this power vacuum to consolidate it around themselves, under the guise of being part of that movement.

  Good examples of this are, of course, Stalin in the USSR, and, as a non-communist example, Putin consolidating power in Russia during the USSR’s collapse and its transition to oligarchic capitalism.

  The geopolitics of 1840s Europe

  Europe in the 1840s was not like it is today, especially in a political sense. The continent was made up almost entirely of absolutist monarchies, with no democratic systems to allow the voices of the citizens to be heard.

  There was a wave of failed revolutions against the feudal systems under these monarchies across the continent, which, with few exceptions, were brutally crushed by the states with almost no change.

  Understanding these circumstances, it is easier to understand why the idea of transitioning to an equal distribution of both political, and in communism’s case, economic power through peaceful means would be considered not just difficult, but laughably impossible.

  Many of the seeds of the modern democracies we enjoy today were planted during this period of turmoil, in part in response to Marx’s manifesto.

  Communism under modern democracy

  Now we have the privilege of living under modern democracies across much of the world, we have an unprecedented opportunity to actually consider Marx’s ideas for a different societal structure, and implement changes that would be for the benefit for all citizens through democratic systems.

  But we need to actually have reasonable discussions about these ideas and their impact, and “communism=genocide” is not only wrong, but takes a hostile stance against the concept before even understanding what the ideas are.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[META] Never change, lemmy.ml⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  every time communism has been tried, it involved massive genocide

  This argument is so frustrating, because it totally ignores the fact that the common thread, both for communist countries and capitalist countries, and both for intentional genocide and crises through incompetence, is the consolidation of power in a small set of individuals or group that prioritises their own self interest over the common good.

  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.

  Never mind the fact that genocide is absolutely not limited to communist countries, and that genocide goes against the actual fundamental principles of a communist system, which is centred on equality.

  Yes, the USSR committed genocide - so did Britain and America, and so are modern capitalist Russia and China right now.

  There’s loads of good reasons both for and against every economic system, communism included. But “communism=genocide lalalala” is just a cheap excuse to totally avoid considering the merits of a different economic system. Doing that denies yourself the opportunity to genuinely consider how a different economic approach, whether that’s communism or just using concepts from the ideology, could improve the lives of citizens in a healthy democracy.