The notion of "state" differs wildly across people, so that probably adds to the confusion.
The core concept is that ownership of a thing belongs to the people of the thing. This is where it clashes with feudalism and capitalism, where ownership of e.g. a farm is not held by the farm workers.
The organizational unit is "group of people cooperating", or a "commune". This can be small, like a hippie farm, or it can be big - a traditional state.
A democratic state can be communist if it forbids private ownership of common resources. I.e. your house is your house and your car is your car but some rich fuck can't decide to build a fence around the local hiking trail.
An authoritarian state may technically be communist if it is strongly democratic. That is theoretical. The ones currently claiming communism are dictatorships.
Not bad. Most reliable critics point out it's solid, with some flaws in dialogue and drag in the combat system. Inter-person relationship building in the expanded cast seems to be a strong part. My personal category of the game is "it has a punk soul", which I tend to value higher than any flaws a thing may have.
It is also very much a deliberate "Fuck you! Fight me!" entry in the culture war, so the reactionary responses are correspondingly strong and angry.
What is the premise? Most countries, US included, does not grant doctors, nurses or any medical professionals or staff the power to hold people against their will.
say you force a cognizant patient to stay at your unit
Thanks. It was surprising to see it interpreted that way, especially given the context (talking about, not to, an obvious troll), but not a difficult rule to adhere to once it's clear.
Thanks for responding! I hope you have the patience to help me understand a bit more. :)
I guess we differ on whether you can respectfully refer to someone without gendered language?
Meaning, the mistake was assuming you could be neutral, not on not knowing the requested gender.
E.g. in academia (at least in my country) we tend to talk about authors of a particular paper as "they" whether they are one, several, male, female etc, even if you know their gender. It is consided respectful, unassuming and inclusive.
Do you think it is disrespectful to e.g. say "I love my partner, they bought me legos for christmas" when talking about my spouse to a colleague even I know she's female? Where my motivation is to not have gender in the conversation?
I am assuming it as "not adding gender to the sentence". Neutral. Leaving it out. Not misgendering. It is how people have always talked about someone when the gender is either unknown, irrelevant, or hard to assume.
I am respecting a site or community's rule that this is not the case on their space, but it's such a deviation from the norm that I want it to be clear.
The qualifier "non-tolerable" was clumsy. I was trying to ask if it fell more on "honest mistake, but not allowed" or "assumed to be an intentional transphobic trangression".
Not personally affected, but I saw someone instantly permabanned with reason "misgendering" for a comment talking about "drag"'s behavior but using "they".
Not warned. Not comment deleted with "please use pronoun at all times". Just bam.
If the general stance is that reaction can be "up to the admin", that's a bit... minefield-y.
Is there any reason you're pointing out his alleged hypocrisy and not the hypocrisy of the Pope regarding child molestation? Are molested children just non-humans or something?
The notion of "state" differs wildly across people, so that probably adds to the confusion.
The core concept is that ownership of a thing belongs to the people of the thing. This is where it clashes with feudalism and capitalism, where ownership of e.g. a farm is not held by the farm workers.
The organizational unit is "group of people cooperating", or a "commune". This can be small, like a hippie farm, or it can be big - a traditional state.
A democratic state can be communist if it forbids private ownership of common resources. I.e. your house is your house and your car is your car but some rich fuck can't decide to build a fence around the local hiking trail.
An authoritarian state may technically be communist if it is strongly democratic. That is theoretical. The ones currently claiming communism are dictatorships.