entirely that of a social club member

This is an absurd amount of projection, coming from the perspective of hexbear. Hexbear is a social club. You are a member of a social club. Look at the post history of the OP of this thread, it has no substance or any reference to leftism, just engagement baiting and shibboleths. When I look at the post history of Pluto, there is at least some substance and Pluto to me at least exhibited some understanding of socialist theory.

The entire front page of hexbear is constantly littered with gibberish inside baseball by like 10 people. For a brief period of time when Hexbear federated with lemmy, hexbear accidentally had a somewhat decent algorithm so that the front page wasn't littered with garbage posts all the time and what happened? The devs brought back the old algorithm which promotes spamming nonsense. This same algorithm is what allowed users like LiberalSocialist to gain so much engagement.

Here's JT's video promoting CPUSA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrnLyvZrdEw

I've seen a lot of people compare Pluto to LiberalSocialist. I don't not believe that they are the same.

LiberalSocialist was fixated on posting and debating extremely online twitter discourse which received a lot of engagement because many other people seem to also enjoy doing that. LiberalSocialist was often reposting things from the D*stiny subreddit and exhibiting traits of a D*stiny fan.

To my knowledge, Pluto was not fixated on online discourse. Pluto seemed to mainly post about real life stuff, not online stuff. Pluto posted about orgs, particularly CPUSA as mentioned in the title. The reason that people seem to dislike Pluto is that Pluto asked people to exercise critical support towards the CPUSA.

Hexbear is aligned with the The Deprogram podcast. I know that multiple Hexbear mods also moderate The Deprogram reddit. Second Thought aka JT, one of the hosts of The Deprogram, is a member and promoter of CPUSA. Second Though has posted on hexbear and done an AMA, (maybe two?). Second Thought has even talked about Hexbear on the The Deprogram podcast.

This seems like a huge contradiction to me. You have one user who is hated for being a promoter of CPUSA and another guy who is beloved by Hexbear despite being a promoter of CPUSA.

~~I think maybe it's this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP .~~

A bunch of websites say that it's this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIX

This looks pretty similar in my opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_Maker

The joke is that bagels were invented by Jewish people from Poland and Germany is Nazis. When I google 'german bagels', every website and reddit post that I see says that bagels are rare in Germany.

How did you come up Safety Third?

It started fifteen years ago in The Dirty Jobs Mudroom – where I used to converse online with fans of Dirty Jobs. Somebody there asked me if I thought safety was really “first,” and I said, “of course not.” Specifically, I wrote this: “No company in the history of the world has ever put the business of safety before the business of making money, and no employee has ever reported to work for the primary purpose of being safe. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.” Someone then asked me, “If safety isn’t first, then what is?” To which I replied, “Safety is too important to rank, but that doesn’t mean its first. ‘Safety Always’ would be a more sensible slogan, but I guess if I had to rank it, I’d put the desire to be safe after ‘the need to make money,’ and ‘the willingness to assume risk.’ In other words, ‘Safety Third.’”

This is from Mike Rowe's website. His slogan is "Safety Third". He plainly says that a business owner's profits and the willingness for workers to take risks is more important than worker safety. That's his slogan. Absolute ghoul.

What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.

Engels says in the conclusion of the writing that we don't really know what sex will look like after the end of capitalism and I think I agree. He says that after men stop paying for sex and woman are able to choose a sexual partner for reasons other than economic dependence, then there will be more sexual freedom. "they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice" He says that the new sexual freedom will create new sexual practices.

I think we can't really say whether it will lead to more or less pornography. Maybe without economic pressures of capitalism, people will feel more free to create pornography for pleasure. Maybe without social stigma against sex, people will feel that they can create pornography without being socially outcast. Currently many people film themselves doing sexual acts for the purposes of "sexting". In the future, people will invent new ways of doing sexual acts that we do not currently understand. Just 2 generations ago, sexting was an unimaginable concept, 2 generations from now will have sexual norms that we don't understand currently. However, I don't think people will stop filming sexual acts.

The more that you write, the more that you are revealing that you have ulterior motives for the things that you are saying. You wrote that communism will have an excessive amount of legislation. (It won't) You wrote that you think that communism is an unreachable utopia. (It isn't) Now you are saying that pornographic media must have "artistic value". (It shouldn't) A discussion about whether media should exist on the merits of "artistic value" is not interesting discourse, it is incredibly reactionary. When you say that porn may only be allowed to exist if you deem to have artistic merit, you are admitting that you are motivated by reactionary beliefs.

Banning media on the idea that it lacked artistic merit and would therefore harm society was a key principle of Nazi Germany. In Nazi Germany, media that was considered to be "d*generate" was censored or banned. Nazis censored paintings, music, films, and plays under the premise that lacking what they deemed "artistic value" would lead German society to being influenced by Jews and Communists. This is the same reason that Republicans (and even Democrats) want to ban pornography today. Reactionaries want to ban the portrayal of sexual fantasies in media as the first step towards banning those same sexual fantasies in real life. Reactionaries don't want porn to exist because they don't want LGBT people to exist and they don't want sexual freedom to exist. The reactionary wants to ban pornography so that sex is more oppressive.

Artistic merit is not objective. Neither you or I should judge which media should exist based on the grounds of lacking "artistic value". I do not see any reason why a communist society would not have consenting adults who want to film their sexual acts and then want other consenting adults to watch it.

I wouldn't equate prostitution with porn production. Prostitution implies an exchange of money. Porn can be produced without money.

In the same work by Engels that you are referencing, he is writing about abolition of the family unit. He says that the family unit and monogamy exists because women are dependent on men under patriarchy and monogamy gives men power over women. Engels says that without patriarchy, children will be raised by the community rather than by individual families.

Our sexual love differs essentially from the simple sexual desire, the Eros, of the ancients. In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked. Secondly, our sexual love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sexual relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? Of course, this new standard has fared no better in feudal or bourgeois practice than all the other standards of morality – it is ignored. But neither does it fare any worse. It is recognized just as much as they are – in theory, on paper. And for the present it cannot ask anything more.

Engels says that without the confines of monogamous marriage and the family unit, with women having equal footing in society, people are free to have sex for the purpose of love. I wouldn't say that people are limited to having sex for the purpose of love. It also doesn't mention filming the sex. It's also very heteronormative, but that is something else. The point of Engel's writing is that he's saying ending the family unit will give people, particularly women, more sexual freedom. It's not about enforcing heterosexuality or monogamy or limiting sex.

Editting my post to say that it's very weird that you think the word "cuckold" is related to porn. Engels used the word cuckold in the writing to describe an abusive husband whose wife decided to cheat on him. Not related to porn at all. Engels just sort of implies that adultery will be less likely in the future because women will have economic independence, leave men instead of cheating.

Despite the fact that western media tells us that the people of DPRK are propagandized. DPRK media has a better analysis of Israel's war on Gaza than most western media outlets.

To clarify, my point is that the exploitative conditions exist in all forms of media creation under capitalism. Analysis is not justification. The point is to remove the exploitative elements from media creation. Which is not only accomplished through regulation, but more importantly through restructuring the modes of production by eliminating the existence of profit.

I don't think that people will stop filming sex during communism, just as I don't think that people will stop making films or television. I do think people will probably watch any media less however because people tend to over consume all type of media under capitalism as a form of escapism.

A lot of "x wouldn't exist under communism discourse" seems to stem from x thing being a modern invention. Communist writers didn't write about porn because filmed porn didn't really exist until the late 1960s. Movies and television as we know it didn't exist before the late 1960s either.

What you wrote also applies to acting and film making in general. You could substitute "pornography" with "movies and television" and it would be effectively just as true. Are there actors who don't like to act but do it anyways because they are promised fame and fortune? Do people who have suffered traumatic events watch films and television to dissociate from their lives? Have the producers of hollywood movies and television engaged in acts of human trafficking? Have feminists debated the inherent oppressive conditions of film production, acting, television and movies under a patriarchal and capitalist world? The answer to all of these questions is yes but we wouldn't say that communism will legislate movies and television out of existence.

For people doubting that Samyang 2x is unbearably hot, watch the woman's reaction in this video. I've ate whole raw ghost peppers and enjoyed it. I enjoy super-hot hot sauces, 100k+ scovilles. Samyang 2x is just unpleasant to eat. Samyang's other spicy noodles are really good.

https://youtu.be/ubqAHNWnhkY?t=179