socsa @ socsa @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

638

Joined

2 yr. ago

I legitimately have not booted into windows for years.

This is why I keep my initrd tattooed as a barcode on my testicles.

I have no idea where you get that idea from. I have tons of praise for China - the culture, the people, the food, the history. I speak ok Mandarin, have family in China and visit once a year typically. I probably have more direct experience with China than anyone on lemmygrad. Unlike those folks, I'm not just here to troll and disrupt conversation. I want to have real conversations about the good as well as the bad. It's the tankie trolls who will never actually engage in good faith. It's the surest sign someone is, in fact, just a troll imo.

There are literally pictures of bloodshed.

I legitimately don't understand why Leninists are so keen on making folk heroes out of tyrants. Why exert the energy to defend this shit instead of learning from it and building a better class of socialist??

I literally know nothing about Vietnamese politics. But I also don't think I've made any assertion that press/individual freedoms are incompatible with socialism. In fact, I think I've been pretty clear about this forum "deserving a better brand of socialist"

I've explained this already. I largely reject the notion that token dissent is less free than no dissent. As do both of the authors you cited.

The corporate media will always serve the elites over token dissent. And token dissent protects capitalists from Capitalism. He is quite funny and self aware when he wants be.

Trust me I get it. What I don't recall is Parenti expressing general skepticism of press freedom as a first principle. He mostly argues that capitalism corrupts the media. Again, this is laughably self evident.

Parenti and Chomsky are more left-libertarians though. Chomsky in particular is a outspoken and vocal critic of Lenin's centralism and is a vehement defender of press freedom. I would say that my ideas of press freedom are quite aligned with theirs, and it seems as if you are one who has fundamentally missed the message.

Only to the sweet siren's call of Casamigos Brand Tequila!

The worldnews thing is the biggest problem right now because the threads just get brigaded so consistently. And lemmy.ml, which has one of the biggest worldnews forums, has a soft ban on the world's biggest ongoing news story.

On one hand, I kind of like that there are separate communities to check up on. It's a very efficient way to waste time.

Nah, this shit is broken on mobile and I can't see the context of my own comments for some reason. Sometimes when I hit context it shows me random comments under the same parent.

But bro you are on the same website having the same conversation I am lmao.

I don't know why you think I have not read those books. I'm quite familiar with both, and agree with many aspects of them. I assure you though, Chomsky is not a press skeptic they way I think you are implying. And not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. You are the one shutting down conversation and making accusations.

But either way, this is quite easy to back test. Is there no western media you can think of which is critical of Capitalism? Maybe even someone you just cited?

Wow that kind of seems like a very narrow view of who can have a voice. It seems to exclude any socialist tradition which is skeptical of revolutionary praxis, or any statecraft which is not based on democratic centralism. Do I have that correct? You only find Orthodoxy and Leninism valid and are not interested in any forms of libertarian or democratic socialism?

Well so first of all, I don't consider only corporate or state owned media outlets to be "the press." But certainly, editorial freedom is a big part of press freedom. One media outlet can only exert editorial control over its own journalists. It cannot force editorial restrictions onto all media the same way a government can. I think this is pretty low hanging fruit when it comes to press freedom - individual bias can be averaged out, but centralized, legally enforced bias cannot. This feels axiomatic to me, but it may not be to others whichbis why I think these conversations are so interesting.

So engaging in violence is the determining factor for determining who can have opinions?

That's great news, because Marx drew pretty heavily from the French and US revolutions when discussing his own revolutionary framework. Where do I pick up my badge?

Edit - Just do a revolution! No not that way!

You are the only one making assumptions here. I want to find some common ground.

So let's pull this thread. I agree that bias is inevitable, but do you believe this negates the value of even trying to protect press freedom? And if so, do you extend this to all forms of truth seeking?

First, I will take the compliment with grace.

Second, this forum deserves a better class of communist. This shit is just intellectually lazy.

I am quite curious to know your methodology for measuring press freedom so we can compare and perhaps find something which can be considered locally objective.

And which of those things were you responding to when you yelled "bootlickers" into the void just now?

Because from my point of view, you are the only one engaging in bad faith personal attacks here.

Most notably, they will not actually engage in any real discussion on these topics. They only want to shut down discussion by calling everyone brainwashed. They will offer not a single critical word against China or Russia, past present or future. Obviously this analysis is very noteworthy, and the conjecture that these societies are above reproach makes for a very good faith argument. Especially when combined with the intellectually honest strategy of removing their opponent's agency by calling them brainwashed. Truly a master debater.