Not sure why people keep bringing this up. Every ideology has blood on their hands, but communism is nowhere near #1. Try comparing the death tolls/genocides/etc of the capitalist/anti-communist side with the communist side.
Communism and its associated pairings have killed far more than capitalism ever will. Communism only ever exists when paired with an authoritarian government and cannot exist without one. Capitalism can (and does) exist without an authoritarian government. There is a reason why the only people that defend communism have never lived under it.
Communism always implies death and destruction, capitalism does not. I am not saying that capitalism and its associated governments always result in perfect or even good outcomes, but that communism always results in bad ones. And either way, the natives were wiped out by governments under mercantilism, not capitalism.
what part of the communist ethos implies death and destruction? really it seems more baked in to capitalism and democracy is the more important piece rather than the economic system... a socialist system can be democratic too
Communism requires an authoritarian government. Authoritarian governments bring death and destruction. Therefore, any communist society will inevitably have death and destruction.
> Communism and its associated pairings have killed far more than capitalism ever will.
Ever will? The "capitalists" have already killed far more. Did communists wipe out a continent full of native americans? Did communists killed more people than the Nazi germany, the US, british empire, chinese empire, japanese, etc in ww2? Did communists kill more people during both the vietnam wars?
> Communism only ever exists when paired with an authoritarian government and cannot exist without one. Capitalism can (and does) exist without an authoritarian government.
Fine, that's an actual argument that can be discussed. But why lie outright about reality. But pretty sure the natives would have loved to live under their own authoritarian government rather than being wiped out by the capitalist paradise.
> There is a reason why the only people that defend communism have never lived under it.
Must be why you are so good at lying. Because you grew up under communism?
Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did. Communism implies evil/bad/death, but capitalism does not. And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism. For your last argument, you do not need to be Gordon Ramsay to know when something tastes bad. Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism. It is an implication, not a bi-implication.
Corporate capitalism largely started colonization. Most of the English-speaking colonization of America was started by companies like the Virginia Company, the Massachusetts Bay Company, etc. Most of India was conquered by the British East India company before it turned over its holdings to the British government. The Congo Free State was the personal property of the King of Belgium, not part of or governed by Belgium, for the exploitation of companies he had interests in.
> Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did
Then neither did communism. The governments did.
> And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism.
Sure. Just like the soviet union, china, north korea, etc are not true communists. Idiots on both sides always make the same excuses.
> Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism.
If that were the case, a certain percentage of the world wouldn't have had to spent trillions to undermine and overthrow communism.
> It is an implication, not a bi-implication.
Morons on both sides love to throw around logic terms they don't understand to buttress their shitty argument. That and silly statistics. 99% certainty. Good one.
I mean, you are the one arguing that they were erased from the map when clearly they were not. And either way, to say that millions of Americans should have died to invade a country that sided with the Nazis and killed bajillions of Chinese and Koreans unjustly is simply incorrect.
The free market should be used to benefit $my_country and should be ignored if it hurts my interests. If the free market is hurting my country, then why play by those rules when I can just use my other resources to get what I want?
I relate to this on a level that I have felt before. I went from wanting to program for literally any company just as long as I could write code to just wanting to finish my degree and make enough money to live in the middle of nowhere with no internet access for the rest of my life.
If you are on a train going off a cliff and you can turn the train around to go off a different cliff, but decide it isn't worth the effort just to go off a different cliff, you still end up going off a cliff. Nice.
I refuse to vote for a party that was complicit with the threats against me and my friends. The other party is pretty ass too, despite being closer to what I want politically.
> refuse to vote for a party that was complicit with the threats against me and my friends. The other party is pretty ass too, despite being closer to what I want politically
Sure. There are a lot of other people like you. Political operatives work hard to find folks like you, because groups who won’t vote are groups you can transfer resources from. (Same, oddly enough, for folks who will vote for you regardless of what you do. You can take advantage of that loyalty to buy votes on the margin.)
It’s dumb. And it directly undermines the causes you and others like and around you support, because again, your devoted non-participation creates political capital on the other side of any issue you would have voted on. But it’s common and a real part of any electoral—possibly political—system, and no elected who wins and keeps office can afford to ignore the free resources predictable non-voters offer up.
I don't really care if it hurts the causes I want, I am not voting for the people who send my friends death threats. Either way, neither party really supports what I want so voting for one would hurt the causes I want anyway.
> I am not voting for the people who send my friends death threats
Uh, then don't. I guarantee you have more people and issues on your ballots than the person who allegedly sent your friends death threats.
> neither party really supports what I want so voting for one would hurt the causes I want anyway
If neither party has any position you give any shits about, yes, I sort of agree you shouldn't be voting... (And I guess I'll concede you aren't voting against your interests and causes if you have no interests or causes.)
If I don't vote for the people who are a part of the party who sent my friends threats and didn't vote for the people who actively hurt the policy I want, I would either be voting for esoteric third party candidates (might as well not vote to save effort), or I would be out of people to vote for.
> If I don't vote for the people who are a part of the party who sent my friends threats and didn't vote for the people who actively hurt the policy I want, I would either be voting for esoteric third party candidates (might as well not vote to save effort), or I would be out of people to vote for
Well no, you'd be forced to participate in primaries or civically engage. You'd have to identify opportunities for compromise. You'd have to disaggregate your false monolith of a national political party. That takes effort.
Also, showing up to vote for an esoteric third party puts you on the board. Someone who shows up is provably not too lazy to vote, which is, honestly, most people who come up with convoluted reasons for avoiding the polls. Take a lazy person's stuff and they won't hurt you. Take a person who's showing up to the poll's stuff, and they might vote for the other guy--or worse, join a primary challenge.
Folks rejecting politics implicitly endorsing the status quo (whether they understand that they are or not is irrelevant to the measurable effect of their choices). They also put up a flag around themselves and their community that effectively marks it for cutting resources to benefit people and communities who reward their electeds.
Friends and I have been threatened with violence multiple times by prominent members of one party and the other party does the same thing to other people. I would love to go into detail but I don't want to get doxxed because it is pretty specific. :(
>Friends and I have been threatened with violence multiple times by prominent members of one party and the other party does the same thing to other people. I would love to go into detail but I don't want to get doxxed because it is pretty specific. :(
So you're a nazi/white supremacist/Boogaloo boy? I wouldn't worry too much about getting doxxed, there are plenty of those around.
Or are you a batshit ancap[0]? That's a smaller group, but still sizable enough to avoid being doxxed just by mentioning it.
In fact, most groups that get that kind of hate (from anyone) are big enough (Trans folks are ~3,000,000 in the US, gay folk are ~30 million. I'd expect you could give at least some detail without doxxing yourself just by mentioning it -- assuming MiiMe19 isn't the name on your driver's license.
As such, I call bullshit on your claims. Prove me wrong.
The situation was specific enough and got enough media attention that yes, I would dox myself by giving pretty much any hint. And no, I am not in any of the groups you gave, or anything related. I hate politics and politics obsessed losers and have better things to do with my time. The only hint I can really give is that years later, despite not even being related to the action that started this whole thing, I (and friends) have been harassed in public and have had people threaten to hurt me just because of this one thing.
lol I'll bet OP has a super hot girlfriend who goes to a different school and plays bass in a punk band. No you can't meet her, she's on tour right now, in cities you've never heard of playing venues you've never heard of. No she doesn't have a bandcamp.
This is exactly the stuff that I think LLMs are best at. We have created the world's coolest string manipulator and this is exactly the kind of things I think LLMs are best suited for. Awesome job!
How do you ensure the titles aren’t confabulated? I’ve used Kagi News recently and it summed up the articles about France wrong (that’s the only section in which I could reliably spot the made-up stuff).
It's still not helpful to wander into threads to talk about your favorite topic without making effort to provide some context on why your comments are relevant. When random crazy people come up to you spouting their theories in public places, the problem is not that their concerns are necessarily incoherent or invalid; the problem is that they broadcasting their thoughts randomly with no context, and their audience has no way of telling whether they just need to verbalize what's bothering them or have mistaken a passer-by for one of the villains in their psychodrama.
tl;dr if you want to make a broad point, make the effort to put it in context so people can appreciate it properly.
reply