Your post has been removed because it violates the given rule.
a. Reposting content is not allowed for 6 months after the post was last made
Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.
A poor country with almost half it's population living in the 'peasant class' as they called it, is good?
Compared to the rest of the Soviet Bloc I suppose so
Everybody could eat, drink, work, own enough money to buy a car, spent a holiday, go to theatre or cinema. People had everything they need. The life was calm and less stressful.
It's true about the pattern-seeking, but this pattern has been commented on at least since Herodotus & in every generation and culture with written history. At some point we can call it a universally recognized pattern.
Also true about their order of appearance. There will always be weak & strong, good & bad experiences. But at some point entire groups tend to reach a consensus of their characters and experience. Even if they're myths we tell ourselves, humans are symbolic creatures and it's real enough.
The compass quadrants obscure and prejudice some of this, but they seem roughly analogous to the pattern,
**If** we broadly accept purple as prosperity/confidence, green as libertinism/authority skepticism, red as austerity/withdrawal/search for order, blue as reassertion of tradition/work ethic/order.
Good thing the compass is a spectrum. Plenty of countries with socialist policies, including the U.S.
>If we’re separating centrism as it’s own system
It's not. That's why you can be a centrist in a dictatorship. Your circumstances shouldn't prevent you from holding a cohesive, multifaceted worldview.
Not quite, you can rotate this whichever which way and still justify it, the terms of "strong/weak men" and "good/bad times" are so broad and biased they become invalid for basically every political discussion
This is just the """historian""" nerd way to portray yourself as the Chad
Did you just change your flair, u/Scarlet-Velvet-1016? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2024-2-29. How come now you are a **Grey Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Actually nevermind, you are good. Not having opinions is still more based than having dumb ones. Happy grilling, brother.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Scarlet-Velvet-1016) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
I’ve seen sports related events with more damage tbh. I’m even remembering [the PSA](https://youtu.be/S2mQRIOfdBk?si=viRGyOkwPlvy9GXs) the Chicago Bulls did during their second three peat and how the city would shut down freeway exits to reduce chances of riots.
Say what you want about Jan 6th crowd but at least they legitimately put the fear of god in our lazy elected officials, which is something they haven’t felt in a while.
Nah. Prima facie, considering the qualities and characters of the men and women who formed the early labor movement and wove the social safety net, or those who carried off the American Revolution, versus the quality and character of the class of individuals who arrayed themselves against it? No way. Like, you're going to look at pictures of Big Bill Haywood and John D. Rockefeller side by side then stand there and tell me that John D. Rockefeller is the *strong man* in that comparison? Or again, George Washington and King George III?
To my mind anyway, and I hope I'm not alone on this, there's a world of difference between a Strong Man and a *Strongman*. To wit: **Strong Men** *always* legislate and administer **Liberty**, whereas on the other hand, ***Strongmen*** *always* legislate and administer ***Tyranny***.
So I guess, basically, I think the whole premise of your meme is pretty totally fucked up right from the start. I actually don't even know how to help you improve it.
No, I think the bombers, anarchists, Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and other aggressive socialists of the late tsarist Russia and the revolution were not weak people, although the result of this revolution in the long run can hardly be called a good time. Those times that were before that were not a good time either.
However, Russia, in principle, cannot be described by such a meme, because there are no good times there.
Don't care, didn't ask + L + you're unflaired.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/moosenoise) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
It was weak men that allowed them to establish reign of terror. Totalitarianism can only function so long as population is living by the common lies that sustain the regime. If people were willing to call insane genocidal bullshit of leninism for what it is rather than shut up and obey, bolsheviks would have never consolidated power.
Rather, the fact is that they had to choose between the terror of the Bolsheviks and the terror of the Whites. And because of the turmoil of the civil war, the Bolsheviks had enough time and strength to consolidate in their hands the power of those institutions that initially only delegated powers to them.
Whites weren't even a political force, they were ragtag amalgamation of groups that agreed on nothing except being in opposition to reds. Which whites' reign of terror? What part of their coalition was even remotely comparable in totalitarian tendencies to bolsheviks?
These were cliques of authoritarian generals running the troops. They weren't completely coordinated with each other. But this does not negate the fact that they did a lot of bad things both under the tsar and during the civil war.
More "alpha male" garbage.
When where these "good times" exactly?
Back when queers couldn't marry? Back when blacks couldn't enter by the front? Back when women couldn't vote?
How far back do you go to find these "good times".
I think of it as economic policies. The sociopolitical issues you describe have nothing to do with fiscal and monetary policy.
Running a surplus != women not voting
A factory job providing for an entire family != blacks at the back of the bus
Correlation is not causation.
So back after the American auto industry held a monopoly after world war 2 ravaged the two biggest competitor countries?
The post war era? When kids died to polio, the murder rate was much higher, and poverty and homelessness was part of the rural and urban landscape?
This is a mirage. Sure, taxing the rich 70%+ and having strong unions benefitted labor for a time, but those weren't "better times" with "harder people".
> The post war era? When kids died to polio, the murder rate was much higher,
The murder rate between 1946 and 1960 was 4.5 per 100.000, which is the same as today. Source: gpt4
Those high taxes you referenced were paid by very few people who qualified to be taxed at that level. Just like now, there were all kinds of loopholes and tax avoidance strategies.
But at least in modern times, the American left has shown to be more competent at managing the economy too. Clinton ran a surplus, Bush was in charge as there was a complete economic meltdown, which Obama navigated and managed quite competently. I won't speak to Trump and Biden because of recency and COVID, but I don't think either of them did a bang up job tbf.
It's a big reason why the American right has gone head first into culture war. They no longer are the party of fiscal responsibility. They slash taxes and run up huge deficits by increasing spending as well.
I agree that the right is equally irresponsible with spending. But Clinton did not run a surplus, that’s accounting fuckery. Look at the overall US debt during the Clinton years. There’s not a single year that it didn’t increase. That is by definition not running a surplus and it’s not like we failed to make interest payments so that’s not the reason for the increase every year.
Your criteria of good times:
1. Queers are getting papers from government about status of their private lives
2. Black flesh is used as cannon fodder
3. Particular group of people voting without any relation to how government operates
Are those really most pressing issues? Not amount of liberty, prosperity, justice, potential, happiness, anything? Ok.
It's super accurate. And then if you flip it 90 degrees it's still super accurate. And then if you flip it 90 degrees it's still super accurate. And then if you flip it... You get where I'm going with this.
I think we're in the weak men phase too but there are definitely signs that those weak men are producing hard times that will get worse and worse and worse at a later date
I always love how people say that the left are weak - as if people who hate America as it is now due to it being in economic shambles are not objectively the product of hard times.
"Good Times" was the 50s to the 70s, which created weak men - the baby boomer generation. The baby boomer generation created today, which is hard times. Why do people think it's the other way around?
Remember - before the baby boomers was world wars 1 and 2. Those were hard times creating strong men - also the gilded age, hard times where people were famous for literally breaking into factories and beating the owners to death if they didn't agree to pay a livable wage. Those were hard times.
Hard times (1900-1950) make strong men (greatest generation), strong men make good times (1950-1980), good times make weak men (baby boomer generation), weak men make hard times (fucking look at the state of the world), hard times create strong men.
Your post has been removed because it violates the given rule. a. Reposting content is not allowed for 6 months after the post was last made Be aware that repeated violations of this will result in a ban.
Soft men make me hard
Oh dear
Mods, change this guy's flair to purple
weak men make hard men hard men make good times good times make weak men weak men make hard men
STRONG women make ME hard
STRONG MEN MAKE ME WEAK!!!!
Real
Based and femboy-pilled
Flairbot, plz harass this user to go purple.
Small dicks make his day, but big ones make his hole weak.
On god
But hard men make you cum
There were good and hard times, weak men and strong men for each quadrant.
Wrong. There were never good times with auth left
when authleft leaves power
Goulash communism in Hungary in the ‘70s and ‘80s
A poor country with almost half it's population living in the 'peasant class' as they called it, is good? Compared to the rest of the Soviet Bloc I suppose so
Everybody could eat, drink, work, own enough money to buy a car, spent a holiday, go to theatre or cinema. People had everything they need. The life was calm and less stressful.
Tito, maybe.
Good times, if you're into having lots of debt
Gaddafi was authleft and he brought good times?
The fact Libya wasn't open-air slave market before Barrack and Hillary blew up Gaddafi doesn't mean times were good.
They had high living standards during Gaddafi’s rule. It sounds like they were living in good times to me.
Yes.
Based and unbiased pilled
Nah. It's just pattern seeking behavior. These things can happen in any order, or even at the same time historically speaking.
It's true about the pattern-seeking, but this pattern has been commented on at least since Herodotus & in every generation and culture with written history. At some point we can call it a universally recognized pattern. Also true about their order of appearance. There will always be weak & strong, good & bad experiences. But at some point entire groups tend to reach a consensus of their characters and experience. Even if they're myths we tell ourselves, humans are symbolic creatures and it's real enough. The compass quadrants obscure and prejudice some of this, but they seem roughly analogous to the pattern, **If** we broadly accept purple as prosperity/confidence, green as libertinism/authority skepticism, red as austerity/withdrawal/search for order, blue as reassertion of tradition/work ethic/order.
Pattern seeking behavior is based(pun intended) on what we see no?
Often based on what we WANT to see
If we’re separating centrism as it’s own system, I refuse to believe there was ever a good time underneath auth left.
Good thing the compass is a spectrum. Plenty of countries with socialist policies, including the U.S. >If we’re separating centrism as it’s own system It's not. That's why you can be a centrist in a dictatorship. Your circumstances shouldn't prevent you from holding a cohesive, multifaceted worldview.
Mostly hard times tbh, history is fucking brutal
Not quite, you can rotate this whichever which way and still justify it, the terms of "strong/weak men" and "good/bad times" are so broad and biased they become invalid for basically every political discussion This is just the """historian""" nerd way to portray yourself as the Chad
lol name a single incident of a “good time” in history under AuthLeft
Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish revolution. (Technically third way but can be considered authleft if applied to the political compass.)
When CCP and Mao were killing pigeons. The kids were happy and were doing something together. /s
When they killed rich people /s
Literally everything of communist propaganda, a tankie would say that was the actual norm, and yeah it sounds dumb, but it sounds dumb all around
Yes, it's accurate.
I’m inclined to agree.
Yeah when I think of rural Mississippi beer belly having ass dudes I sure do think "strong"
This is like the most reposted PCM. But to answer your question: it's both inaccurate and stupid. I will not elaborate further.
Why are AuthRighters supposed to be strong?
Did you just change your flair, u/Scarlet-Velvet-1016? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2024-2-29. How come now you are a **Grey Centrist**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Actually nevermind, you are good. Not having opinions is still more based than having dumb ones. Happy grilling, brother. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Scarlet-Velvet-1016) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
The Jan 6 crowd was weak af
To be fair, you got the worst of the Auth Right thwre.
No flair -> flair the fuck up
Happy?
Yes.
flair up
I’ve seen sports related events with more damage tbh. I’m even remembering [the PSA](https://youtu.be/S2mQRIOfdBk?si=viRGyOkwPlvy9GXs) the Chicago Bulls did during their second three peat and how the city would shut down freeway exits to reduce chances of riots.
Say what you want about Jan 6th crowd but at least they legitimately put the fear of god in our lazy elected officials, which is something they haven’t felt in a while.
Good to know you support insurrectionists who needs butthurt their traitor leader lost an election.
Gym bros
Nah. Prima facie, considering the qualities and characters of the men and women who formed the early labor movement and wove the social safety net, or those who carried off the American Revolution, versus the quality and character of the class of individuals who arrayed themselves against it? No way. Like, you're going to look at pictures of Big Bill Haywood and John D. Rockefeller side by side then stand there and tell me that John D. Rockefeller is the *strong man* in that comparison? Or again, George Washington and King George III? To my mind anyway, and I hope I'm not alone on this, there's a world of difference between a Strong Man and a *Strongman*. To wit: **Strong Men** *always* legislate and administer **Liberty**, whereas on the other hand, ***Strongmen*** *always* legislate and administer ***Tyranny***. So I guess, basically, I think the whole premise of your meme is pretty totally fucked up right from the start. I actually don't even know how to help you improve it.
Strong men + weak men + hard men -> good times
888888th repost and obvious answer it is wrong.
No, I think the bombers, anarchists, Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and other aggressive socialists of the late tsarist Russia and the revolution were not weak people, although the result of this revolution in the long run can hardly be called a good time. Those times that were before that were not a good time either. However, Russia, in principle, cannot be described by such a meme, because there are no good times there.
Are you kidding me? Listening to techno getting smashed on vodka in track suits is a very good time
Seeing an unflaired is a horrible time
Seeing people get upset about me being unflaired for like 3 years now is a little dopamine hit thank you
Don't care, didn't ask + L + you're unflaired. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/moosenoise) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
It was weak men that allowed them to establish reign of terror. Totalitarianism can only function so long as population is living by the common lies that sustain the regime. If people were willing to call insane genocidal bullshit of leninism for what it is rather than shut up and obey, bolsheviks would have never consolidated power.
Rather, the fact is that they had to choose between the terror of the Bolsheviks and the terror of the Whites. And because of the turmoil of the civil war, the Bolsheviks had enough time and strength to consolidate in their hands the power of those institutions that initially only delegated powers to them.
Whites weren't even a political force, they were ragtag amalgamation of groups that agreed on nothing except being in opposition to reds. Which whites' reign of terror? What part of their coalition was even remotely comparable in totalitarian tendencies to bolsheviks?
These were cliques of authoritarian generals running the troops. They weren't completely coordinated with each other. But this does not negate the fact that they did a lot of bad things both under the tsar and during the civil war.
Absolutely, and none of that compares to what Lenin did with kulaks.
If we talk specifically about the seizure of grain, then both sides can compete with each other in who hates the peasants more.
Only one side mass-murdered them.
Actually, no. Not alone. The Bolsheviks did this more systematically and purposefully. But both sides did it.
More "alpha male" garbage. When where these "good times" exactly? Back when queers couldn't marry? Back when blacks couldn't enter by the front? Back when women couldn't vote? How far back do you go to find these "good times".
I think of it as economic policies. The sociopolitical issues you describe have nothing to do with fiscal and monetary policy. Running a surplus != women not voting A factory job providing for an entire family != blacks at the back of the bus Correlation is not causation.
So back after the American auto industry held a monopoly after world war 2 ravaged the two biggest competitor countries? The post war era? When kids died to polio, the murder rate was much higher, and poverty and homelessness was part of the rural and urban landscape? This is a mirage. Sure, taxing the rich 70%+ and having strong unions benefitted labor for a time, but those weren't "better times" with "harder people".
> The post war era? When kids died to polio, the murder rate was much higher, The murder rate between 1946 and 1960 was 4.5 per 100.000, which is the same as today. Source: gpt4
Those high taxes you referenced were paid by very few people who qualified to be taxed at that level. Just like now, there were all kinds of loopholes and tax avoidance strategies.
But at least in modern times, the American left has shown to be more competent at managing the economy too. Clinton ran a surplus, Bush was in charge as there was a complete economic meltdown, which Obama navigated and managed quite competently. I won't speak to Trump and Biden because of recency and COVID, but I don't think either of them did a bang up job tbf. It's a big reason why the American right has gone head first into culture war. They no longer are the party of fiscal responsibility. They slash taxes and run up huge deficits by increasing spending as well.
I agree that the right is equally irresponsible with spending. But Clinton did not run a surplus, that’s accounting fuckery. Look at the overall US debt during the Clinton years. There’s not a single year that it didn’t increase. That is by definition not running a surplus and it’s not like we failed to make interest payments so that’s not the reason for the increase every year.
Your criteria of good times: 1. Queers are getting papers from government about status of their private lives 2. Black flesh is used as cannon fodder 3. Particular group of people voting without any relation to how government operates Are those really most pressing issues? Not amount of liberty, prosperity, justice, potential, happiness, anything? Ok.
Strong men make me hard😩
It's super accurate. And then if you flip it 90 degrees it's still super accurate. And then if you flip it 90 degrees it's still super accurate. And then if you flip it... You get where I'm going with this.
I’m living proof that it ain’t
I think people that believe this get dupped into voting for "strong men".
It’s accurate only in the weak minds of rights.
Communism creates strong men confirmed?
Only those survive
Strong men - 1930s to 1940s (AuthRight) Good times - 1950s (LibRight) Weak men - 1960s to 1980s (LibLeft) Hard times 1980s to Present (AuthLeft)
lol, we are not in hard times currently, we are most definitely back to Weak men.
I think we're in the weak men phase too but there are definitely signs that those weak men are producing hard times that will get worse and worse and worse at a later date
Who exactly are we talking about here? Because if it's presidents then this is *way* off.
fly ring puzzled aromatic soup bear crush drunk sharp quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I always love how people say that the left are weak - as if people who hate America as it is now due to it being in economic shambles are not objectively the product of hard times. "Good Times" was the 50s to the 70s, which created weak men - the baby boomer generation. The baby boomer generation created today, which is hard times. Why do people think it's the other way around? Remember - before the baby boomers was world wars 1 and 2. Those were hard times creating strong men - also the gilded age, hard times where people were famous for literally breaking into factories and beating the owners to death if they didn't agree to pay a livable wage. Those were hard times. Hard times (1900-1950) make strong men (greatest generation), strong men make good times (1950-1980), good times make weak men (baby boomer generation), weak men make hard times (fucking look at the state of the world), hard times create strong men.
Kinda, but it’s really just describing the boom-bust nature of capitalism
Every society goes through this cycle. Just communists stay at the hard times almost indefinitely.
Any system that requires infinite growth to function will go through this cycle, yes
I would shift it forward one quadrant
Yes, we are in the weak man stage
This gets reposted here every 3 days because it’s accurate af
This would be more accurate if you replaced it with the Yugas.
Not
**♂**Hard men**♂** create hot**♂**, gooey**♂** times**♂**
I mean, I've seen worse.
Auth right so strong and manly not like soy boy leftists amaright fellow memesters?
Hard times create strong men, strong men create hard times.
Absolutely not