Uuuuuuugh, “I don’t like this source” is easily one of my least favorite responses; the respondent may as well not even post since they’re ignoring the content anyway. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.
There has to be some sort of course that people can take to teach them how to properly scrutinize sources and distinguish between good reporting and rumourmongering, rather than trying to take shortcuts like that.
And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious? It doesn’t make the replier look clever; it’s just extremely embarrassing.
Fucking hell, I was just listening to Amerika an hour ago and it inspired me to reflect on how the Fascists once tried to Germanize the world, failing where the U.S. succeeded.
I was a little reluctant to mention the inspiration because I was worried that that would have made others here berate me (I feel like I read somewhere that there were ties between Rammstein and neofascism, but I could be misremembering). Now that I know that Till Lindemann is basically a heavy metal Michael Jackson I’ll be careful to mention the inspiration critically.
You have to understand, if you paid your workers better then you’d massively increase inflation, raising the costs of products and services by over 500%, soon rendering everybody homeless and putting them millions of dollars in debt. Then you’d have to file for bankruptcy tomorrow, unemployment would reach 99%, the number of production goods would be in the negative, and you might even tear open a rift in the time–space continuum. Trust me, the folks at the Austrian School of Economics can back me up on this.
I am glad that you asked about this. Anticommunists like sharing these photographs without giving any context.
I don’t speak Chinese, but judging from this (crudely translated) article, Luc Kim Phung (sometimes translated as Liu Jinfeng) suffered the death penalty for committing mariticide. Her husband was very abusive and infanticidal. ‘At the police station, Luc Kim Phung admitted all of [her] actions. In March 1995, Luc Kim Phung was sentenced to death, although the court considered all relevant circumstances, […] because she had a criminal record, there could be no other sentence.’
While I agree that Reich analogies can be a crude way of getting a point across (being rhetorical shortcuts) and I prefer that nobody overuse them (like the right does), I don’t want anybody to scorn lower‐class people for using them against their oppressors either. In general, I believe that the ways in which we respond to our oppression should preferably not be controlled; that can only make an unpleasant situation worse, and anyway, we have legitimate grievances.
At one point in 2020 I became acquainted with a communist on Twitter who compared the U.S. police force to the Wehrmacht. I found that inaccurate, personally, but given how the police oppress us I didn’t bother nitpicking. In fact, it was a nice opportunity for me to share examples of antisemitic neofascists in the police force.
What pisses me off is when somebody equates the oppressed (e.g., Palestinians, lower‐class communists) with the Reich instead. That is when the analogies go from being mildly questionable to enraging and make me regret the very phenomenon of Godwin’s law. On the other hand, that is probably a slight overreaction on my part.
“seven taboo” topics that are banned from discussion in classrooms, including freedom of speech, universal values, civil rights and past mistakes the party made.
Sounds legit; I’m sure that Bloomberg isn’t misrepresenting or grossly oversimplifying reality (again).
A 2002 report from The Lancet said that the DPRK actually pursued ‘aggressive and unsustainable strategies to maximise the output of its land, only 15% of which is arable’, which blatantly contradicts the ignorant (or willfully dishonest) anticommunists’ claim that the land is ‘underutelized’.
Finally, seeing as how these anticommunists admitted that they ‘don’t want to deal with the population after the Kim’s are gone’, I have a sneaking suspicion that they would resort to something like this so that nobody would have to deal with the population ever again.
Good video; this is the best critique that I have seen of him. I myself suspect that he was a utopian socialist for a (very brief) period in his life before becoming an ex‐socialist, which is not that unusual of a development among reactionaries. See Karl Popper, & alii.
“All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil‐spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.”
Damn, he was both‐sidesing in life earlier than I thought.
Originally ‘genocide’ did not refer to literal massacres, but actions that inhibited nationalism, hence why some people now say ‘cultural genocide’ to clarify that they are not referring to violence. To further complicate matters, sometimes the ethnic aspect is overlooked completely, and it becomes a crude synonym for ‘mass killing’. It’s an ambiguous term with a great deal of emotional baggage, which is why anticommunists like overusing it so much.
Well, coming from the same asshole who was famous for both‐sidesing fascism and communism, I guess that I shouldn’t act too surprised that she would both‐sides European colonialism and African indigenity either.
It’s fucking disgraceful how centrist anticommunists have been canonizing him as a saint when they all would have hated him decades earlier, when he was most politically active. They’ve done the same thing with Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, Frida Kahlo, Malcolm X, and (most obviously) Martin Luther King. They ignore their anticapitalism as much as possible, and when forced to acknowledge it they usually just conveniently wave it off as ‘unimportant’.
Uuuuuuugh, “I don’t like this source” is easily one of my least favorite responses; the respondent may as well not even post since they’re ignoring the content anyway. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.
There has to be some sort of course that people can take to teach them how to properly scrutinize sources and distinguish between good reporting and rumourmongering, rather than trying to take shortcuts like that.
And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious? It doesn’t make the replier look clever; it’s just extremely embarrassing.