Awoo [she/her] @ Awoo @hexbear.net

🏴🚩Ⓐ☭

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

405

Joined

5 yr. ago

"But he was an evil dictator!"

Setting aside the fact this is obviously wrong as there were 5 members of the central committee, all with equal powers... 4 times Stalin attempted to resign. The party consistently voted against his resignation and would not allow it. Even Trotsky rejected his first attempt in May 1924 to resign from his positions at the 13th party congress.

1927 speech referencing it:

It is said that in that “will” Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s “rudeness” it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true.

Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that.

At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.

What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.

A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. What else could I do?

Here is his second attempt August 19, 1924 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):

To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] RCP [Russian Communist Party]

One and a half years of working in the Politburo with comrades Zinoviev and Kamanev after the retirement and then the death of Lenin have made perfectly clear to me the impossibility of honest, sincere political work with these comrades within the framework of one small collective. In view of which, I request to be considered as having resigned from the Pol[itcal] Buro of the CC.

I request a medical leave for about two months.

At the expiration of this period I request to be sent to Turukhansk region or to the Iakutsk oblast', or to somewhere abroad in any kind of work that will attract little attention.

I would ask the Plenum to decide all these questions in my absence and without explanations from my side, because I consider it harmful for our work to give explanations aside from those remarks that I have already made in the first paragraph of this letter.

I would ask comrade Kuibyshev to distribute copies of this letter to the members of the CC.

With com[munist] greet[ings], J. Stalin.

Third attempt December 27, 1926 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):

To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] (to comrade Rykov). I ask that I be relieved of the post of GenSec [General Secretary] of the CC. I declare that I can work no longer in this position, I do not have the strength to work any more in this position. J. Stalin.

In his fourth attempt, upon rejection of the resignation by the party he attempts instead to abolish the role of General Secretary of the party altogether:

Stalin: Comrades! For three years [Suggesting there could be more resignation attempts unbeknownst to me - ZB] I have been asking the CC [Central Committee] to free me from the obligations of General Secretary of the CC. Each time the Plenum has refused me. I admit that until recently conditions did not exist such that the Party had need of me in this post as a person more or less severe, one who acted as a certain kind of antidote to the dangers posed by the Opposition. I admit that this necessity existed, despite comrade Lenin's well-known letter [Lenin's Testament - ZB], to keep me at the post of General Secretary. But these conditions exist no longer. They have vanished, since the Opposition is now smashed. It seems that the Opposition has never before suffered such a defeat since they have not only been smashed, but have been expelled from the Party. It follows that now no bases exist any longer that could be considered correct when the Plenum refused to honor my request and free me of the duties of General Secretary. Meanwhile you have comrade Lenin's directive which we are obliged to consider and which, in my opinion, it is necessary to put into effect. I admit that the Party was compelled to disregard this directive until recently, compelled by well-known conditions of inter-Party development. But I repeat that these conditions have now vanished and it is time, in my view, to take comrade Lenin's directive to the leadership. Therefore I request the Plenum to free me of the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee. I assure you, comrades, that the Party can only gain from doing this.

Dogadov: Vote without discussion.

Vorshilov: I propose we reject the announcement we just heard.

Rykov: We will vote without discsussion...We vote now on Stalin's proposal that he be freed from the General Secretaryship. Who is for this proposal? Who is against? Who abstains? One.

The proposal of comrade Stalin is rejected with one abstention.

Stalin: Then I introduce another proposal. Perhaps the CC [Central Committee] will consider it expedient to abolish the position of General Secretary. In our Party's history there have been times when no such post existed.

Voroshilov: We had Lenin with us then.

Stalin: We had no post of General Secretary before the 10th Congress.

Voice: Until the 11th Congress.

Stalin: Yes, it seems that until the 11th Congress we did not have this position. That was before Lenin stopped working. If Lenin concluded that it was necessary to put forward the question of founding the position of General Secretary, then I assume he was prompted by the special circumstances that appeared with us before the 10th Congress, when a more or less strong, well-organized Opposition within the Party was founded. But now we proceed to the abolition of this position. Many people associate a conception of some kind of special rights of the General Secretary with this position. I must say from my experience, and comrades will confirm this, that there ought not to be any special rights distinguishing the General Secretary from the rights of other members of the Secretariat.

Voice: And the duties?

Stalin: And there are no more duties than other members of the Secretariat have. I see it this way; There's the Politburo, the highest organ of the CC; there's the Secretariat, the executive organ consisting of five persons, and all these five members of the Secretariat are equal. That's the way the work has been carried out in practice, and the General Secretary has not had any special rights or obligations. The result, therefore, is that the position of General Secretary, in the sense of special rights, has never existed with us in practice, there has been only a collegium called the Secretariat of the CC. I do not know why we need to keep this dead position any longer. I don't even mention the fact that this position, called General Secretary, has occasioned in some places a series of distortions. At the same time that at the top no special rights or duties are associated with the position of General Secretary, in some places there have been some distortions, and in all the oblasts there is now a struggle over that position among comrades who call themselves secretaries, for example, in the national CCs. Quite a few General Secretaries have developed, and with them in the localities special rights have been associated. Why is this necessary?

Shmidt: We can dismiss them in the localities.

Stalin: I think the Party would benefit if we did away with the post of General Secretary, and that would give me the chance to be free from this post. This would be all the easier to do since according to the Party's constitution there is no post of General Secretary.

Rykov: I propose not to give comrade Stalin the possibility of being free from this position. As concerns the General Secretaries in the oblast and local organs, that should be changed, but without changing the situation in the CC. The position of General Secretary was created by the proposal of Vladimir Il'ich. In all the time since, during Vladimir Il'ich's life and since, this position has justified itself politically and completely in both the organizational and political sense. In the creation of this organ and in naming comrade Stalin to the post of General Secretary the whole Opposition also took part, all those whom we have now expelled from the Party. That is how completely without doubt it was for everyone in the Party (whether the position of General Secretary was needed and who should be the General Secretary). By which has been exhausted, in my opinion, both the question of the "testament" (for that point has been decided) and exhausted by the Opposition at the same time just as it has been decided by us as well. The whole Party knows this. What has changed now after the 15th Congress and why is it necessary to set aside the position of General Secretary.

Stalin: The Opposition has been smashed.

(A long discussion followed, after which:)

Voices: Correct! Vote!

Rykov: There is a proposal to vote.

Voices: Yes, yes!

Rykov: We are voting. Who is for comrade Stalin's proposal to abolish the post of General Secretary? Who is opposed? Who abstains? Noone.

The holocaust is a proven genocide. Nobody is denying proven genocides.

The thing people are doing is pointing out that calling something a genocide when it is absolutely not is dangerous and offensive propaganda literally stemming from the nazis.

You can't be a genocide denier by correctly pointing out something isn't a genocide. If someone says France committed genocide in Britain last week and I say "no they didn't, that's ridiculous" it doesn't make me a genocide denier - because it didn't happen. Genocide deniers are people that deny real genocides everyone else is just stating the literal truth.

If anyone is looking to replay Red Alert 2 again I strongly recommend trying out the Mental Omega mod. It's an asbolutely massive entirely new game that does a better job than the poor attempts at sequels. Mod site is here: http://mentalomega.com/

The hexbears will like that it adds China and a united latin confederation.

I don't like people breaking the law

I do when it's directed at the bougie fucks. Not so much the other way around.

lmao good bit, fell for it

horrifying

HAHAHAHAHAHA fuck off mate lmao

Because it existed as a community with 200k+ users on reddit until reddit banned it. Everything that gets pushed off reddit will find a home elsewhere, and as long as it's not hate it should be embraced for the growth of the platform, much like Piracy.

Based. Shoplift everywhere else too, especially the supermarkets.

https://youtu.be/wqUJ0go5Pww

https://youtu.be/oNBOCejGiTU

Do you know any technical details about why the worlds can't be made seamless?

I don't know the technical details but I know that when you attempt to add new map area to any existing map (for example the overworld) the physics engine does not engage for those spaces. You have to create new map areas for anything new.

There are also hardcoded limits to the number of entities that can be loaded in-engine at any one time. When you go over the alotted number of NPCs for example it starts spawning them in the sky, this causes the infamous flying horse bug everyone has seen in modded Skyrim when they've added too many new NPCs to zones. I think newer games have had some bandaids slapped on the engine to increase this but it's still there.

Open Cities works because the cell already exists, so they just took everything in the city zone and moved it into the existing world cell, which is identical in size. So there's no problem with this causing issues. This can't be done for a lot of buildings (to create interior/exterior) because of various issues such as NPCs not knowing where their house is unless it's a defined place you go through a loading screen on, so taking houses and slapping them into open world would completely break scripting for their daily routines, same for every building in the game. Some of them are tardis design too, bigger on the inside than the actual building is on the outside.

The engine should be rebuilt from the ground up though. It's full of problems and it's fundamentally dated, for example one of the most obvious things a new version of the engine should include is making the world completely seamless - no more loading instances, no more loading screens entering interiors, etc etc. But all the other problems with the engine need addressing. And they can do a huge amount to make it better for the mod scene if they rebuild.

Continually slapping more and more fixes on this engine fundamentally ignores the fact it is impossible for it to get around several issues it has at its core without a rewrite.

The game has incredibly bad performance issues and dogshit politics.

For a game they've dubbed "Nasa punk". There's no punk at all. It's 98% corporate fantasy wish fulfillment for musk-brained techbros and 2% punk. The criticism of capitalism is so paper thin that you can barely notice its presence anywhere at all.

The space pirates use guns with anarchist symbols on them and say anarchist slogans but are clearly not anarchists in ideology and instead are straight up thugs and raiders.

The UC military is presented as real professionals, which is not really correct. If they accurately represented the US military that they're based off of then they'd being jarheads, except for the recruiters and media where the professional show is put on. This is fantasy wish fulfilment at best, or propaganda at worst.

There is no bigotry, patriarchy, etc in this universe and it's absolutely absurd. The universe would have these, capitalism provides an incentive to exploit. Marginalised people are the easiest to exploit. Capitalism has an incentive not to solve marginalised people's problems fully and the further away you get from states enforcing laws to try and mitigate these problems the bigger they would get. So in space and because of the colony wars these issues would have gone through the roof.

It is bizarre that there are wars occurring and yet there are no space refugees anywhere? Where are they? Also there's no homeless people which is fucking weird again. Also no slums or self-constructed accomodation on the periphery of the cities which really ought to exist given that the player can do just that. It's all so idealised to a ridiculous extent.

Everyone doesn't have the money for a starship, there is one absurd mission where you apply for an admin assistant job. You're expected to fly into space and to a space station with your own starship to apply for an administration and assistant job? There should be a private shuttle company that people use to taxi around space for things like this.

--

In short, the politics are dogshit and the performance is bad. But, the gameplay is good if you like other bethesda titles it plays just like them. Additionally, I think it's probably the strongest ever game they've released for modding.. And probably their best title since Oblivion (not counting New Vegas which they didn't make).

Yeah it runs rock solid. I get the impression FS must have good employee retention and have very good methods for building employee skills, so over time they've only improved. On top of hiring and acquiring some of the best staff that must have existed in other Japanese studios. No idea how they actually treat the employees, could be like shit because it's Japanese work culture, but something about them is producing content that is consistently a cut above everything. They're getting up there like Rockstar in terms of quality but based in Japan instead of the UK.

Because the US has been embargoing it for 50 years to prevent it from getting everything it needs.

The UN regularly votes on the US embargo of Cuba, and only the US and its lapdog Israel support it.

Misuse of the term genocide is considered soft-holocaust denial.

I think morality is just not a very useful metric for discussing what states do because none of them are moral, ever. "We're doing [thing] for justice!" is 100% propaganda 100% of the time. It was propaganda when the US said it about invading Iraq and it's propaganda when warhawks say it about Ukraine defending itself. Their real motivations of american policy makers are throwing ukrainian people into a meat grinder because they want to see russia harmed for global competition reasons.

If we want to talk morality. The only moral thing to advocate for is the shortest possible path to the lowest possible number of lives lost. The quickest end to the war. The liberals claim Russia want to genocide all of ukraine because they know that if they drop this claim they have no way to continue the war, because continuing the war by keeping them armed only costs lives for an unwinnable meatgrinder.

Advocating for the continuation of the war is immoral. It will cost tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands more lives, will not be won, and for what? Lines on a map? We're socialists, we don't care about which bourgeoise state exploits the people, we care about the people. Choosing to advocate for an action that continues the war is just nationalism, the act of defending a bourgeois-state at the cost of lives. We don't want to spend those lives. We're not cheerleaders for one group of billionaires (the west) or another group of billionaire capitalists (russia) having their rule over the ukrainian people or russian people. We ultimately want them both gone and want the people to no longer be exploited. In the meantime we want the least harm. The least harm in a war is the shortest end to that war, not dragging it out as long as possible for the highest number of deaths possible.

And that's it really. That's what I think about any argument over "morality" in this war. I think we have the morality position, liberals and fascists advocate for a nationalist position, they care about states and lines on maps more than people. We are going over exactly the same moral contradictions that the internationalists vs the nationalists of the late 1800s and early 1900s went over. The nationalist position led to ww1 and ww2, then everyone lost their taste for nationalism, until now a few generations later the cultural scars caused by nationalism have waned, particularly in america where they've never had scars from nationalism.

Russia is totally justified in Ukraine

Nobody said any such thing.

China isn't doing anything to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Not anymore no. They were running re-education centres that had mandatory stayover Mon-Fri, return home on weekends. Those all closed literally 2 years ago now but liberals still scream about it.

They were saying that north Korea is a lovely democracy

DPRK positions are generally quite critical and measured when it's socialists discussing with other socialists. However when a liberal comes in with all their propaganda and brainworms though you get the unironic stanning because it's practically a waste of time having the conversation. If you wanted the measured and mature conversation about it you'd first have to demonstrate genuine willingness to learn and engage with intent to learn, most liberals are incapable of this and want to talk about haircuts or how the entire country is somehow one big play pretend show put on purely for white western liberals and actually things are so bad because they unironically believe the propaganda from defectors making up absurd stories like they have to push the trains because you lot actively want to believe anything you're told.

I'd have the measured conversation about it, but I seriously do not think your response to this will be mature or academic enough for it.

Sure those are only ideological differences, but they are really big ones.

Socialists are much further away from you than you are away from republicans. We know this. We point it out regularly.

Absolute chad

Why would you vote on whether or not Hexbear decides to federate?

SJW federates with everyone and then defederates from things that are a problem. SJW isn't the one taking any action here, it is Hexbears decision to turn on federation, SJW has changed nothing that required voting on.

Yeah it is at this point.

Yeah and we don't consider protests votes to be Nazis. 2/3rd of the current AfD poll numbers are protest votes btw, 47% want the party outlawed (and among the 47% who don't are plenty saying "they should be dealt with otherwise"), and 10% of people polled to vote for the AfD want the AfD outlawed.

It doesn't matter what purpose a protest vote has if it's advancing nazi agendas and change in society. People don't need to be nazis to be influenced by nazis.

Back to Ukraine: Svoboda has exactly one seat. They can't really be hateful Nazis people don't like that, and they can't go undercover as patriots either because being a patriot really isn't a distinguishing factor while the whole democratic spectrum from left to right is fighting at the front.

Once again ignoring all the fascists in the major parties just because their party line isn't "we're fascists". It's like you fucking liberals can't understand that taking off a nazi uniform doesn't actually mean you stopped being a nazi.

From all I know that could be a Golden Dawn guy hating Ukrainians. The plural of anecdote is not data and that's not even a plural. Generally speaking the idea of Ukraine as a multiethnic, and naturally multiethnic state, is very solidly anchored in Ukraine.

It's a war. You're not getting data until 20 years after its finished. Multiethnic? You are out of your fucking mind. Pogroms and mass exterminations have been common since the start of the war. You're not an anarchist, you are a nazi and it is blatantly fucking obvious that you're here playing games and being a silly fuck. It is a considerable waste of time talking to you, eat my ass and kindly follow your leader.