this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
660 points (96.5% liked)

196

18656 readers
138 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 72 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's why I don't support governments or countries, I support people and anarchist liberation movements :3

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Peace, Justice, and Anarchy

[–] F04118F@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 22 points 1 year ago

Only bad dragons 😉

[–] socsa@piefed.social 8 points 1 year ago

Hate your state

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly! I'm so tired of being accused of being a liberal and/or a fascist every single time I note that China or Russia isn't some perfect leftist utopia, but in fact just another empire that is a pain in the ass not only to other countries but also their own citizens.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

China is a fascist ethnostate, Russia is another neoliberal capitalist state, North Korea IMO cannot be described as socialist, Vietnam is pretty cool but mixed and only partially socialist, Cuba is not great tbh just in general, Venezuela is horrible, the Nordic states are just Social Democrat states, Israel has multiple worker co-ops but that doesn't change the fact that they're still a genocidal ethnostate, that just about covers all the tankie countries.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago

Russia has long reached the end state of neoliberal capitalism, fascism. The US is currently transitioning.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Israel is a tankie country now? Don't they support Palestine? Let's not rob tankies of their only correct opinion!

Kinda how they believe Chinas genocide is justified Tankies have no real problem with genocide

[–] leaf@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Tankies support the more problematic empires such as Russia and China.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you not read the meme? Imperialism is bad no matter who is doing it, and arguing over which empire is more 'problematic' is counterproductive, as we should oppose all empires instead of wasting all of our time and effort on getting on each other's throats.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 20 points 1 year ago

And in doing so they may have pushed large parts of the Chinese-American community to the right. Tankies caping for the CCP were not a good look for the moderate immigrants who had been fucked over by the Chinese government in various ways.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

You're just repeating the meme.

They are all bad, they are all part of the problems we face globally, and whatabouting "them" to avoid facing criticism of "us" only serves those in power by deflecting criticism of them.

Less problematic in some ways, more problematic in other ways. We shouldn't be supporting the "less problematic" empire. We should be fighting any and all empires.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's something that really bothers me about communism and socialism being derisive in the US, even in 2024, about 35 years after USSR fell.

The alternative to community-centric society is autocracy, typically devolving into monarchism.

Death to monarchists!

[–] currycourier@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean "atheism" is still a dirty word in politics, thousands of years after the prejudice against that started. Apples to oranges, sure, but just goes to show how long it takes for public opinion to shift sometimes.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

[LONG RAMBLE]

TLDR: Atheism wasn't really regarded as a threat (other than the thing that USSR enforced) until the aughts and the New Atheism movement, at which point right-wing religious ministries turned from hating on other ministries to hating on atheists and secularists.


Atheism has some fascinating recent history. In the 1970s and 1980s atheists were disregarded almost entirely since it was an asserted position mostly by hard-line scientists and philosophers. Most of the none population instead went to (or at least associated with) left-wing churches. My parents (my Dad who is a rocket scientist and was atheist except in name) joined my mom and I at the Church of Religious Science (later the Science of Mind Church) which is pretty darned lax and easy to accept as religions go.

And the religious right (then, the Southern Baptist Church and the rising Evangelical movement) hated us and declared us false. They also did this to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (still regarded as a dangerous cult) and the Roman Catholic Church. John F. Kennedy got a lot of flack for being Catholic, and Republicans insisted he'd be beholden to the Holy See -- and they tried to pressure him! -- but he demonstrated he could serve the US as president and keep the Vatican at arm's reach. Romney was still getting crap for his Mormonism in his 2012 presidential run, but it blended seamlessly into all sorts of other biographical anomalies that suggested character problems.

I should add there was a pro-religion sentiment in the US that was really anti-USSR. Marx recognized religion as the opiate of the people a symptom that the masses were suffering from precarity or scarcity, but Marx was saying the response of the community should be to feed them and keep them free of want, and as the dispair fades the need for religious practice will fade as well. (We're not sure if he's completely right.) So Lenin and Stalin's response was to ban religion, which didn't actually address the issue, but it gave the US justification to push church-going in the mid 20th century as a thing that pinko commies didn't do.

Anyway, atheism became significant movement thing due to two factors. One was the new atheist movement which orbited Richard Dawkins and the top atheist guns. Dawkins motivation (as he tells it) was the 9/11 attacks, which showcased the power of religion as a force multiplier in violent conflict. But there was also a certain privilege that religious movements and religious institutions were given that secular ones were not, which was a favored topic of Douglas Adams. And so bringing atheist and secular organizations to equal status as churches was a big early goal of the new atheist movement.

The other factor bringing the rise of popular atheism was the rise of the internet which allowed us all to actually talk about things and confront that a lot of us already had awkward relationships with our respective religious institutions. Myself, this was a period for me to naturalism, ruling out supernatural elements until one comes and bites me on the butt. (This is the dream for IRL ghost hunters, to have a poltergeist beat them with their own duffel. Pain is temporary but evidence lives forever on the internet!)

That said the aughts marked the spread of atheism (and the consequential collapse of left-wing church attendance. Right wing church attendance has been falling less quickly but noticeably, and ministries continue to be in panic about it. And this was when anti-atheist pro-Christian and pro-Muslim movements (who absolutely don't ally) started organizing to scare everyone how terrible we godless folk are, as if our interest in intellectual exercise and not the hypocrisy endemic to right-wing Christian ministries is what is driving parishioners from their pews.

[/LONG RAMBLE]

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I also noted this was a problem with the Rebel Alliance (who just supports a republic of oligarchs), and was called a centrist for my efforts.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See, they shouldn't have gone with the First Order. They should've had the New Republic stamp out the Empire, only to create a new empire itself.

[–] Jon_Servo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Star Wars is supposed to be palatable to children, and my guess is that those types of politics muddy the waters too much for kids to grasp. Simplistic and clear "good vs evil" lines appeal to wider audiences.

[–] jherazob@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

"But they're the good guys!"

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

I'm anti-imperialist and pro-metricist.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] laserm@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

We conquering Cartage with this one 🔥🔥🔥

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

IMPERIVM SINE FINE

Too many reports for the comments of this post so I'm locking this

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

anti imperialist/colonial supporters when they find out that the entire timeline of human history is conquest, colonialism, and imperialism.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It absolutely is, but my take on that is we're just bad at doing community-based government and need more practice.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

possibly, but i think it's a sort of fundamental problem. I would be curious if history/anthropology has any sort of knowledge on societies that didn't have a hierarchical power structure within itself. But i'm guessing it's very uncommon, if not unheard of.

If humans could do a communal governance structure effectively, one would think it would have already been tried, and successfully implemented.

Democracy is probably the closest thing we've ever had, but it's still not perfect.

I'm sure theres also a lot of psych and socio research on this as well.

there's also the question of whether it's even possible to have a communal government structure in the first place, the world is incredibly complex, and politics is even more complex, doing things correctly is very hard.

TL;DR i don't think it's possible, and i'm not sure it ever will, judging by how humans behave.

[–] PropaGandalf@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Max Stirner? In my 196? I'm for it.

[–] PropaGandalf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A fellow egoist? In my 196? I'm in for it (because it pleases me).