Zuzak

Graphic design is my passion

Jiang Zemin, the leader of China after Deng, responds in an interesting way to a reporter asking a tricky question

Thanks to @Babs@hexbear.net for showing me this, I really enjoyed it so I thought I'd share.

Somebody had to do it.

That's it. Our instance requires us to stop responding if you explicitly ask us to. It's right here buried in our Code of Conduct

Any discussions may be opted out of by disengaging.

In the past, this rule has only applied to the specific user you say it to. I'd like to suggest going forward that if someone on another instance uses it, we treat it as applying to all of us.

Unfortunately this rule wasn't communicated clearly before, so I'm making this post for visibility.

Edit: As the comments clarify, this has to be done in good faith, typically just a one word "disengage" comment. If you add more stuff to the discussion and then say "disengage" at the end, you're not disengaging, it's a way to put a stop to a toxic argument not to get the last word in.

I remembered how each time that the democracies failed to act, it had encouraged the aggressors to keep going ahead. Communism was acting in Korea just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had acted ten, fifteen and twenty years earlier…. If this was allowed to go unchallenged it would mean a third world war, just as similar incidents had brought on a second world war.

• Truman on Korea

If I may refer again to history; we failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time. That marked the beginning of many years of stark tragedy and desperate peril. May it not be that our nations have learned something from that lesson?

• Eisenhower on Vietnam

Nor would surrender in Vietnam bring peace, because we learned from Hitler at Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle would be renewed …bringing with it perhaps even larger and crueler conflict, as we learned from the lessons of history.

• Johnson on Vietnam

We succeeded in the struggle for freedom in Europe because we and our allies remain stalwart. Keeping the peace in the Middle East will require no less. We're beginning a new era. This new era can be full of promise, an age of freedom, a time of peace for all peoples. But if history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms. Appeasement does not work. As was the case in the 1930's, we see in Saddam Hussein an aggressive dictator threatening his neighbors.

• George H. W. Bush on Kuwait

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies

• George W Bush on Afghanistan

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

• George W Bush on Iraq

I LOVE MY TRANS COMRADES

Since federating, we can see MORE TRANS COMRADES. And THAT'S GREAT

I LOVE MY NEW TRANS COMRADES

I LOVE MY OLD TRANS COMRADES

WE ALL LOVE ALL OUR TRANS COMRADES

KEEP ON ROCKIN'

I don't usually use forums or Lemmy, I usually just post comments on SocDem blogs but they didn't seem appropriate places to post my story. So here goes, I just wanted to share this with all of you.

Aug 8 I checked out Lemmy, I did lemmy.world then lemm.ee then hexbear.net next. I am an SocDem so I wanted to see socialists in these places. Yes, I know they are different kinds of "socialists" and not really full socialists like us. I went to Hexbear, which everyone knows is famous for its revolutionary socialism.

We started talking about politics and socialism. I was trying to talk about the right, they were like yeah no doubt the right was bad. But they wanted to talk about Western hegemony, Western hegemony this and that. This is when we started to get into a debate.

I told them that what they called Western hegemony is different from the rules based order. They said the rules based order is Western hegemony. And I said I agreed. That is what I am saying. Real Western hegemony is a rules based order. And they said yes, that is what we are trying to get rid of. And I said no, but we don't even have that right now. We need more Western hegemony. And everyone at the same time was like "nooo" we are socialists, we are against Western hegemony. Socialists oppose Western hegemony. And I said but not social democrats. Social democrats are the socialists who support NATO.

I think that is when it started to get a really bad vibe, really tense in the air. The hegemony thing was funny, we disagreed but I think they thought I was just confused. Everyone was uncomfortable now. Then someone said the rules based order won't allow international solidarity. And I said exactly, that's it, international solidarity is against the rules based order. And they kind of agreed, and said yes, we don't have real international solidarity, just imperialism, and we needed to respect Russian security concerns. I said no, we need less support for Russia, Russia is the enemy. And we need to defeat Russia to have socialism. Then they were all like "noooo" again. You know that thing people do in groups when everyone all says "nooo" or expresses some disapproval at the same time.

And one of them said "but Putin is a neoliberal transphobe" and then they kind of spoke back and forth in emojis. I didn't really understand it. And they asked me what I meant.

So I said okay, I had the floor, I was going to tell them about social democracy. I tried to explain to them that Putin was exactly like Hitler and that China is genociding Uighurs. I said the democrats have our best interests at heart and they had to increase military spending to counter foreign threats. They are trying their best. They said what do we want instead of communism. I said we want to defend the international order against anyone who defies it. They said that is what we have now. I said no, it would be even better. One of the guys said it was imperialism. And I said it is not imperialism.

Eventually one of the posters spoke up. He said he knew what social democracy was and that we were basically fascists. He asked me if the IMF should be the only choice for developing counties. And I said yes. And he asked me if I thought people outside the imperial core were brainwashed. And I told him yes. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that that wouldn't happen under Western hegemony. But yes, Democrats could put immigrants in cages if they wanted to. They had to respect Western hegemony.

Then he called me a fascist again, and someone else said I was a fascist. And then they basically all started shouting fascist at me, and one of them posted a pig with shit on it's testicles and told me to go fuck myself. I remember yelling "you're being authoritarian!" and things like that. "Stop suppressing my free speech." Then the mods banned me for 1984 years.

So they were rude and authoritarian. I knew the tankies were not real socialists, but I never knew they would do something that bad.

:some-controversy:

Upgraded from a comment

I talked to my boss when I first got hired about being pregnant and doing my job. It was a very physical job with long hours and could be quite dirty, but many women did it pregnant. He agreed with me that pregnancy was no hindurance to the job. For over a year I talked about becoming pregnant and he assured me it was okay. On the day I was supposed to fly out to meet the parents, he informed me that he would let me go if I went. I had my shift covered, everything was in line. I was dumb founded when he said that if I thought he was going to let me work there pregnant I was wrong. All that time he had been fine with it. So I prodded, trying to find out what changed his mind. His wife even did the same job while she was pregnant with their son! His response was "but she didn't sell the baby." He wouldn't let me explain, talk to him, or show him why he was wrong. He just told me to leave. I loved working there until that day and no amount of money could have brought me back after that. Selling my baby?? So far from the truth!

Based leftist boss fighting against human trafficking?? :so-true:

I mean, I gotta admit, like if someone's boss found out they were involved in selling children off to Little St. James and fired them, and I doubt anyone would fault them for it. And based on the thread we had the other day, it seems like a lot of this site believes that surrogacy is "literally buying babies" or equivalent to Murray Rothbard's "free market for infants" - or at least, a bunch of you think that's a reasonable position to have. So I'm curious if any of the 50 or so people who upbeared that thread see any problem with that boss's decision to fire his pregant worker for, as you would agree, "selling her baby." I'm curious to know if you'd make the same decision in his shoes, and if you see any problem with that situation - other than of course, that he couldn't hand her over to the cops as well.

I guess I'm just trying to better understand your positions. Like, is this something that you actually believe, or is it a superficial, exaggerated rhetorical flourish that you know is bullshit but use anyway because it provides a pretext for infringing on women's rights? You know, like "abortion is murder?"

I also wouldn't mind hearing from some centrists and moderates on the issue. Those who think both sides have a point, between, "Surrogate mothers are engaging in human trafficking by returning a child to their biological parent," and, "Surrogate mothers have a right to bodily autonomy." Is there one side that you think is more reasonable, or are you a true centrist, right in the middle of those two, equally extreme positions?

While I'm at it, I'd also like to open up the discussion more broadly. Is there anything else women's bodies do that you think is immoral, or maybe just plain gross? Anything else you think ought to be illegal? I'm really looking to hear from some men here, because I feel like we never get their perspective on that.

Anti-surrogacy is just anti-choice for anti-natalists.