I don’t think many people on lemmy conflate marxism with leninism outside of .ml, and even there folks seems to see leninism as something on top of marxism and not inherently mixed.

And then we also have people who feel stalinist style “communo facism” would work well because everyone you like will be fed and everyone you don’t like will be dead. I don’t think anyone ever liked those people, including themselves.

deleted by creator

yes, that is the transgender agenda, we switch genders each time we open lemmy and use blahaj plushies to stabilize, don’t blow our cover like that in public though jesus christ

Capitalisms’ unsustainable model of infinite growth requires something like imperialism to keep going, and even if you could point out alternative venues for capital acquisition, it’s still what people in power want, since it gives them more than just fuel for capitalism, but also more power. Countries and companies that do not rely on imperialism directly, most often rely in others that do. While it’s not entirely futile to discuss whenever that has to be the case in theorethical capitalist solution, it is the case in one we’re living under, and since it’s the ruling class of hyper-wealthy that make decisions about the worlds future and current state of affairs is result of those decisions, it is the system we have to deal with. Unless, you know, we bring out the guilottines and start over, but I don’t see much point in retrying capitalism to see if it won’t lead us down on the path to facism again.

But that would only work under assumption that in any group of people at least one of them has to be a ghost, or at the very least the chance that there is a ghost in a group of people is greater than 0, right? Is it something about the chance of someone being a ghost being truly unknown, and thus all possible values of probability being taken as equally rational, and with infinite number of possible values for probability of someone being a ghost for infinite number of them observing that no one in a group of people you’re in is a ghost… No, that wouldn’t work either, because it would require an assumption that this specific group of people might have a ghost among them. Assuming anyone can be a ghost with unknown probability still only works when the group you’re observing is entire population, does it not? Limiting it to specific group of people relies on it being representative of entire population, and random groups are not. Especially if you were to be a ghost, that would already make a group you’re in rather unique. Or not, depending on what’s the unknown value of probability of someone being a ghost.

I mean, what???

I don’t understand, please explain

He looks like he commented to someone doing this sport professionally that it look easy and now, with a bit of disdain and irritation, he had to show them what he meant by that

WW3 between… Russia and North Korea, with… uhh… allies? It’s weird because both China and USA would want to get involved, but neither would know on which side. Imagine USA allying with China to help North Korea fight Russia by mistake. That would be embarrassing.

Current Russia is purely a capitalist country, their lobbying structure is a bit different than in States, but it’s exactly the same kind of corruption and economy is developed in very similar way. Not to say that USSR was a communist country in anything but a name, it was just Stalin that decided to skip the socialism part and figured he might as well call his invention by name of what he promised to deliver. And further still, it’s not like Cold War was about ideology instead of influence, which USSR clearly lost by, you know, dissolving.

Yeah, it’s such a hostile enviroment that no one is willing to hear you out, much less give you a hug.

I agree with most of your points except with one about socialists being unelectable - I believe that Bernie would have moped the floor with Trump in 2016, and even more so in 2020. First woman president had a nice ring to it, but Hillary performed terribly, and with her being basicially an aristocrat of the establishment, lots of people hated her from the get go. They shanked Bernie so their corporate overlord donors wouldn’t get pissy, and voters treated that as betrayal. After very solid 8 years of Obama it get like Dems had this victory in their pocket regardless of what they do, and they commited to proving that hunch wrong. That’s at least the vibes I got from watching the elections from Europe, I did hear that Obama wasn’t as popular as he seemed to be.

I’m proud I didn’t vote Blue in 2016 and 2020. I’m not from the USA so it would be a voter fraud if I did.

That being said, dems are completely incompetent when it comes to elections, deliberately picking such terrible candidates like Hillary and Biden. I don’t believe there are actual people that voted Blue because of seeded candidate and not despite it.

Stop being such a radical extremist, lets hear them out. I swear, it’s because of people like you that no one gets along anymore. I bet those guys share very insightful thoughts once you get to know them better. They’re just worried about, you know, all the stuff. Stop the hate. Hug a nazi.

If you can get me a seat in the splash zone then I’m in

Right, sorry, it was his wife that outed him for having Hitler speeches book “My New Order” back in 1990, which he apparently kept in a cabinet next to his bed. In the interview he also admitted having a copy of Mein Kampf, though he never openly claimed to read that book often. When he quoted Hitler in 2023 he said it was just a coincidence. Which caused no one to feel uneasy, no one at all. His former chief of staff claimed that Trump praised Hitler for doing some good things, like rebuilding the economy.

So right, sorry, I mixed the “Mein Kampf” for “My New Order”, and it was his wife that outed that, he only confirmed.

I see republican voters shooting republican candidates as pretty much reasonable outcome rather than some newly emergent threat to democracy. Trump made his image himself, it was him who decided to harass miniorities and brag about reading Mein Kampf often. It was him who made republican message extreme, provoked an insurrection, had all those criminal charges and appointed obviously corrupt judges. He groomed americans into feeling insecure and threatened and radicalized a lot of them. I think random depressed kids trying to suicide by shooting him is the least he should expect, especially seeing that USA has a gun cult focused around right to bear arms against threats to democracy. Also a child rapist, which alone is enough for millions of people to pull the trigger. You’re seriously blaming his bad image on anyone else?

To be fair prisoners of war being raped to death to humiliate them is pretty complex mental issue. We know that psyhopathy can sometimes be acquired as a trait, and it seems Israel has ways of inducing it. Interestingly enough, Nazis invented similar stuff as well… Oh, no, no, I’m not comparing the two. Just an off hand comment. Move along.

Well, I didn’t say it was less important but that it was less discussed, and that it’s regrettable. You’re the one pulling the “women are more important” from your ass.

“And yet it is perfectly acceptable for women to call men trash based on their experiences” I literally have no idea where you took that from. I wrote that it’s insane to call all men trash and that it’s not a general consensus.

Everyone is dangerous. Anyone can have a weapon or other means to cause harm. You having a penis being a cause of concern is only viable as long as you have intent to maliciously use it. If you think people are afraid of you specifically, and specifically because you, ArcaneSlime, have a penis, then I think you need to rethink the way you approach people. No one is treating you as a monster and treating you as one because you’re a man is not fine. And if someone is attacking you on that basis then I’m not extending my argument to them, that’s simply moronic, but also not the way broader society works, as far as I’m aware.

I agree with you on most points, except for that part where you put yourself in the place of “generic strange man” in a forest. It’s not a fear of someone specific, but rather of a stranger with unknown intentions in a place in which the woman is not protected by any authorities. I feel like that last part is being intentionally omitted in the “male side” of the discourse, since other people being around change the dynamic dramatically. I’m pretty sure most women would prefer to meet a man on a busy street than a bear, since bear wouldn’t care about social subtleties like not mauling people to death while people watch. I also find idea of woman not being able to find their way out of the forest on their own, an so random stranger met in woods being a boon to them kind of silly. I know you were making a hypothetical situation there, and sure, if woman was lost in the woods for past 6 months, was hungry, injured and desperate, then I believe she would be more receptive to meeting a person in a woods, but that’s adding more and more conditions to the situation, changing it from “chance meeting” to “struggle to survive”.

I also think that we should recognize that women are afraid of meeting a man in a forest because that man could be a rapist/murderer in a middle of nowhere, that hypothetical collapses at the moment we assign specific person to the unknown face. I think people struggle with this question because they put themselves in the boots of the “random stranger” and feel bad for being feared, despite them being kind and loving. It’s not about meeting “you” specifically. You’re not the hated “man in a woods”. At most you’re a stranger in a bar that women feel a bit awkward and unsure about at the start. Most women will feel completely fine meeting their dad or brother in a forest.

Most people literally will trust you if you’re helpful, open and outgoing, women included. No one owes you their trust even if you did your best, regardless of gender, though. And even once they somewhat trust you, I still don’t think it’s a great idea to give/accept open drinks and otherwise expose yourself to potential danger, unless that trust is really solid. I don’t think it takes much to accommodate that kind of wariness nor that it’s somehow insulting or degrading to men. Being aware that women are - or feel like they are, whichever you prefer - exposed to more danger than men, just in general acting in a ways that wouldn’t be taken as suspicious and not taking it as an insult if they don’t entirely trust you is enough to fit in and not feel like you’re being ostracized as a man.

If you said that all women are trash, then regardless of what you would feel safer with, you’d still be called (deservingly) an incel. Calling all men trash is also an insane take, but I think you’re shadowboxing here. All/most/significant number of men being trash is absolutely not a general consensus on the matter. All women needing to be wary of all men because of actions of some men is, however. I don’t know what do you think “being treated as a rapist” looks like, but I’m pretty sure you’re not complaining about going to jail for being a man, but rather women not being overly friendly with you by default.

I am sorry for the experiences you had with abusive women, and I agree the issue of sexual violence against men is often swept under the rug because of comparison with sexual violence against women simply because of the prevalence of later being much larger. Wish it wasn’t.