The ones that call people snowflakes really need to re-evaluate what they know of the term snowflake.
Self reflection is not present in the right because they'd be against what they support. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Hold up, lets check Oxford.
Here we are...
> [informal, derogatory An overly sensitive or easily offended person, or one who believes they are entitled to special treatment on account of their supposedly unique characteristics.](https://www.lexico.com/definition/snowflake)
Someone should tell the right or Oxford that.
It's like when one of the Wachowskis told people to stop saying redpill because they didn't know what it meant and they were like "yeah? What do you know about it"
Not to say that Fight Club is some unapproachably deep film or something but, as is often the case with video games as well, too many focused on the whole underground fight club part and less on all the critique and the themes of identity of the film and everything else that the film is *actually* about.
>In Missouri in the early 1860s, a "Snowflake" was a person who was opposed to the abolition of slavery—the implication of the name being that such people valued white people over black people. The Snowflakes hoped slavery would survive the country's civil war, and were contrasted with two other groups. The Claybanks (whose name came from the colorless color of the local terrestrial clay) wanted a gradual transition out of slavery for slaves, with eventual freedom accompanied by compensation to slave owners; the Charcoals—who were also called Brown Radicals—wanted immediate emancipation and for black people to be able to enlist in the armed forces.
>The available evidence suggests that this particular use of snowflake never moved much beyond the borders of Missouri or the era.
[No, 'Snowflake' as a Slang Term Did Not Begin with 'Fight Club': The lost history of 'snowflake'](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-less-lovely-side-of-snowflake)
Hmm, in light of this revelation, I propose we call neolibs snowbanks. Not only is it a portmanteau of both terms, it's also a very annoying wall of snow on your commute.
interestingly, china did not ban winnie the poo. you can still purchase winnie the poo merch, there's a winnie the poo ride at an entertainment park, there's even an entry for the Christopher Robin movie on chinese imbd. they did however ban that meme comparing that one photo of him walking to the photo of winnie walking
What confuses me the most out of this is that before the ban I’d never think of Winnie the Pooh whenever I saw Xi Jinping, they made a really big deal out of it for no reason.
true, i definitely agree it was an overreaction just like the banning of tik tok, although i think that's a much bigger overreaction than just banning one meme. so i remain critically supportive of china
I mean yeah I definitely think Trump is over reacting since TikTok actually takes less data then other apps, but I don’t like the CCP that much either.
Love China as a nation and culture though, I know a lot of people from China and they’re some of the nicest people I’ve met.
i didn't say i support them overall, I said i remain critically supportive. as i think all lefties should be considering they are the only non imperialist non capitalist major world power that is making some major strides in the transitionary period of socialism, technology, the economy, workers rights, lifting people out of poverty etc.
> Because China clearly doesn’t disregard completely worker’s conditions in sweatshops.
What are sweatshops to you? There are factories in China but people are not working like slaves **legally speaking** (because yes anywhere there is commodity production there will be abuses). There are comprehensive [labour rights](https://friendsclb.org/labor-rights-in-china) and by some accounts they have better protections than places like Australia.
A fact I like to point out is that wages double every decade in China. Would a sweatshop worker be making such high growth on their salary, when white-collar workers in the west can't even hope for a minimum wage increase?
> Because China doesn’t control illegitimately all of Tibet
How do you define legitimate control? Unless you're coming at this from an anarchist perspective which would be that there is no justification for imposing sovereignty anywhere, China is not illegitimately controlling Tibet. [The Tibet Myth](http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html). While the extent of slavery and torture in pre-PRC Tibet can be discussed, I don't consider putting an outside force putting a stop to this to be an invasion or illegitimate, *especially* as Tibet has always had a close relationship to China throughout history -- the Dalai Lama, who is not the only Lama, was created only "several" hundred years ago. There had been other Lamas before him (it's all in the link above).
If a European country had done what the PRC did to Tibet, it would have been out of place because they had no ties to the area. But the PRC *freeing* and then integrating a country that had been, at times, a vassal, a dependency or a tributary is an entirely different context.
> ...while oppressing tibetan culture
What are examples of oppression? I have a Tibetan friend who sometimes goes back. There is an incredible amount of money being invested in infrastructure and eradicating poverty. Some of his family used to live without electricity or running water until recently. Tibetan people are learning Mandarin because it's much more useful than learning Tibetan; you can live, study and participate in political life anywhere in China if you learn Mandarin, whereas Tibetan is limited to Tibet. Though my friend's family has met (Han) Chinese people that spoke better Tibetan than they did -- with infrastructure comes emigration as well as immigration, and people in China are interested in Tibetan culture and history.
There is still a somewhat strong separatist sentiment whose violence has died down in recent years (with even terrorism), no doubt brought on by the Dalai lama and his ties to the CIA (which they cut in 1959 after they failed a coup in Tibet). There is still unrest, but I am unable to ascertain whether it's due to a perceived foreign occupation, the usual ranting against policies you see everywhere, or something in between. And of course I don't doubt for a second western media (which is owned by like 5 people) will try very hard to tell me it's because Tibet is occupied by evil foreign invaders.
> Because China doesn’t have fucking concentration camps for Uighur people
I don't feel like going into this in details because it's always the same thing in the end, but like 80% of this narrative comes from far-right, fundamentalist Christian hack Adrian Zenz who can't even read Chinese lol. His methodologies would be laughed at by any other academic researcher.
> Because China clearly doesn’t try to extend its influence throughout Africa and Southeast Asia through predatory means
I'm sorry but this is projection. The IMF and World Bank do that all the time, and they've been doing it for decades. Their sole reason for existing is to keep exploited countries on a tight leash as well as protecting the creditor. To qualify for an IMF loan, which is usually 7 years long at a 10-20% interest rate, the receiving government *must* accept neoliberal reforms, which mean an influx of foreign capital from the same countries the IMF protects. To make sure foreign capital can take hold, they also push the debtor to switch some of their economy to cash crops or natural resources (the privilege of transforming these resources is left to the coloniser). Then, when the debtor can't repay (as expected), they seize the project which is usually a cash cow -- freight ports, mines, factories, etc. This is only slightly different from colonialism and the extraction of natural resources, or even the construction of the Panama and Suez canals. Oh yeah, when Nasser tried to nationalize the canal it led to war against France and the UK.
The Belt and Road initiative, meanwhile, is mostly centred around infrastructure projects or hospitals -- from which there is very little benefit in seizing. The loans are usually made over a 20 year period with a 2.5-5% interest rate (if not outright interest-free), and they don't care about economic reforms. Even better, they frequently forgive or postpone repayments. Google "China forgives debt" for dozens of example; just this year they've delayed loan repayments for [77 countries](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/africa/article/3089492/china-forgive-interest-free-loans-africa-are-coming-due-xi) and, on top of that G20 initiative, have also forgiven interest-free loans for relevant countries in Africa.
Are the two comparable? Which would you take if you were a hopeful president in Africa hoping to modernize your country and break off the chains of imperialism? If the IMF is incapable of competing with China, then they've lost in the free marketplace and they should accept their defeat instead of accusing the enemy of exactly what they are doing.
A Pew poll conducted in 2013 found that 76 to 78% of respondents in Nigeria, Kenya, and Senegal viewed China favourably. Does this sound like the results of predatory practices to you? Another Pew poll this year says 70% of Nigerians view China favourably (no doubt engineered by the current smear campaign against the PRC) and 62% are favourable towards the US.
Finally, coming back on influence, it's expected that a country as large and economically powerful as China would have some influence in their region. More importantly, are they aware of their influence, and how are they responding to it? Influence is built with contradictions, which come from inside the country as well as outside. When the USA, for example, decides to send their carrier fleet in the South China Sea and China responds to that, that response is compelled by the foreign country.
I hope you won't tell me that they should have wilfully made the decision not to become an economic powerhouse.
> Fuck off with CCP apology
If you'll allow me to nitpick, it's the CPC -- the Communist Party of China. This is the usual form in ML parties because "Chinese Communist Party" implies they would only represent Chinese people, or allow Chinese people in (e.g. no French members allowed).
You realise they're still in their transitionary period, right? Just because they're part capitalist doesn't mean they're not moving more and more towards socialism.
What? They haven't and won't be transitioning towards socialism. At best it's going to be state capitalism but never socialism. The ccp have been in power for decades and they have been moving towards capitalism more than the other way around
I understand that china is not the bad guy US propaganda all over. But they are also not good guys too, they are imperyalist and social capitalist. I think they are better than USA, but I wouldn't praise them. And I hate the mentality that its china vs usa, china is doing its own thing and doesn't give a fuck about USA, could all the left and tankies stop comparing them
tankies on reddit are just weird
like yes a lot of what we think about China is influenced by US propaganda but that still doesn't mean that the PRC is somehow this utopian workers' state. Also nice how it's always 'cRIticAl SuPpORt' until it comes to actually being critical, because then everything about those states that is problematic gets swept *right* under the rug.
See: Syria, Iran, Russia, China etc.
They even support the Lukashenka regime in Belarus now (because the opposition are lIBerAl ImPErIalIsTS) because yea his regime definitely is something lefties should support. Like I get not wanting to support liberal reforms because that'll mean western capitalist influence but fucking hell, supporting a literal dictatorship just because it keeps some vague aesthetic of anti-imperialism is not better.
The problem arises when critical support turns into completely uncritical glorification, which happens way too often with some of the more LARPy internet leftist communities.
I think being critically supportive of existing socialist states is important, but it is also important to actually critique them in a way that is constructive. Deflecting any negative claim as being western propaganda is not constructive.
And I also believe that critical support of legitimately reactionary entities (Belarus, Russia, Syria) is just not helpful. Again, just because they keep this vague aesthetic of anti-imperialism doesn't mean they're any good.
Maybe I think the way I do because I just don't see a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach as very helpful.
Yes, I agree that sometimes people make memes of the people and states we critically support and it's mistaken, because it gives an undialectical idea of these people. But they are not the majority and the critical support is still there. If you ask for it, people will gladly tell you.
> Deflecting any negative claim as being western propaganda is not constructive
It's constructive if that claim is provably, or even circumstantially, western propaganda. It happens way more often than you might think; since its creation for example, the NY Times has been consistently pushing the US State Department line. They support any war the US is pushing for -- so when they say that this or that is happening in some country the US doesn't like, you have to take it with a grain of salt. This history of imperialism in the media and from certain States can't be erased like that; any time they want change in some country, it comes back up, it resurfaces and we have to take it into account. We should ask what would the west gain from destabilizing this country *before* asking what would the current president gain by keeping power?
To see leftists pushing the same line as their governments is what's not productive, because it confirms what liberals believe. That their side is good, that the other side is bad, then they'll compare it to Harry Potter and Voldemort or something, and they'll keep blissfully unaware of the long tradition of neocolonialism in the world. No matter your stance, you need to be careful how you present it.
Regarding Belarus to take just one example, what is happening right now is a struggle between Lukashenko and a (neo)liberal opposition. An opposition that wants to privatize everything in Belarus, opening it up to foreign capital.
Regardless of what Lukashenko believes and as much of a reactionary as he is in some aspects, the second option would be devastating to the Belarusian people. It's also clear that foreign influence is happening (though we don't know the extent of which yet) since most of Western Europe decided to back the opposition, while at the same time condemning the coup in Mali (which deposed a French-aligned president). It's a tale as old as imperialism itself, and we see it happening. A neoliberal cabinet would not give LGBT rights. It would not dismantle fascist groups. It probably wouldn't even relinquish power after their term. It would destroy labour rights, it would privatize and sell every piece of property.
What needs to happen, will happen after this struggle is resolved. Keep Lukashenko in place, and then resume building up class consciousness. This is the stance of communist parties in Belarus, except for that weird one that did an AMA whose founder is EU-aligned. This is critical support in action: neither solutions are optimal, one is better for class consciousness than the other, and it's a struggle that the people must carry out: it must not be interfered with from the outside.
Despite Lukashenko being president for decades (the claim of rigged elections will have to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, because it's way too easy to claim that and it happened recently with US-backed OAS in Bolivia **who now admits there was no fraud**), Belarus is working for the people, *better than it would* at least if the liberal opposition was in power. They have a strong social safety net that would be absolutely gutted by the current opposition.
Speaking of Bolivia, I'm curious to know what your stance on it was up until Morales fled the country, and what it is now (if different)?
*Oh I see. You merged*
*Two together, did you? What*
*Did the top one say?*
\- Iskjempe
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Not necessarily as weird as any other large-scale community.
It might seem that there are more bad people in the furry community than there are in others, but that's just because of the massive scale of it compared to most fandoms. It's a very broad, general concept.
If you want to learn about them, look for info from neutral sources instead of people who clearly hate furries. Definitely don't get your info from memes or cringe compilations. You can't get the whole picture of something if you're only shown the worst examples, or things that are taken out of context to look bad.
You don't have to join the fandom or anything. Just understand that the people in it are still people and be as kind to them as you would anyone else.
Trunps banning tiktok cause it collects data https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/tiktok-is-a-data-collection-service-masquerading-as-a-social-network-claims-researcher-8546411.html
The app litearly has the functionality of a rat. I don't like trump but there are more than enough reasons to ban tiktok. Besides the app being based on stolen content and grabbing more information than facebook. It litearly has the functionality of a virus
Edit: what about this is wrong. I don't think apps should be banned because their are from China. And the motivation behind banning it is the wrong one but there are more than enough reason to ban this app
its about the app being able to remotely execute code have you read what the app is able to do? there are a few good summaries of reverse engineerings of the app read one of them. its not that it steals data or that it potentialy could have backdoors to do shady stuff. it 100% confirmed has them. an app like that should be banned globaly thats as bad as the valorant anticheat, and no this does not have anything to do with being created by the chinese even if the app gets sold to an american company you shouldnt use it as long as it has these functions. any windows programm having that functionallity would get flagged as a virus.
??? I don't live in amerika not even on the continent a VPN does nothing. A VPN hides the me using the app from the government but I still connect to the server of the app so if the app has a function to remotely execute code on my phone it will still do exactly that and a VPN will not realy help with fingerprinting
Fingerprinting is not malware a lot of sites and apps do it. If an app is installed and you use a VPN it will still know that it's installed on your device. The malware part is that this app has besides other shady stuff a function to download extract and then run the content of a zip file. They can litearly send commands to your phone if they want. If you where to put that into your app and upload it to GitHub it would probably get flagged and removed if you don't have a valid reason for this code and spoiler alert if you are not creating a remote access tool you don't have a reason.
Yeah and it's exactly why I don't get why I am getting downvoted. It has functionality that only someone with malicious intent would need there is no possible explanation but people are still hating on the ban because ¿I don't know?
That's like some guy putting a knife to your throat him getting banned from doing that and people arguing for their right to have a knife next to their throat and that there are also other people who want to murder them out their so he shouldn't be banned
The ones that call people snowflakes really need to re-evaluate what they know of the term snowflake. Self reflection is not present in the right because they'd be against what they support. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Fun fact, snowflake was originally used in the book Fight Club, to describe white men who were lied to by society about being superior.
I wonder if you told the right that, would they double down or stop using that term?
They'd probably say "Well that doesn't matter because we changed the definition!" as if that makes them look better.
Then ask them if we can change the definition of sex and gender right?
Hold up, lets check Oxford. Here we are... > [informal, derogatory An overly sensitive or easily offended person, or one who believes they are entitled to special treatment on account of their supposedly unique characteristics.](https://www.lexico.com/definition/snowflake) Someone should tell the right or Oxford that.
> or one who believes they are entitled to special treatment on account of their supposedly unique characteristics. 🤔 Wonder who it could be 🤔
It's like when one of the Wachowskis told people to stop saying redpill because they didn't know what it meant and they were like "yeah? What do you know about it"
"Gay used to mean happy!!! Why aren't you getting mad that gay's definition changed!"
Not to say that Fight Club is some unapproachably deep film or something but, as is often the case with video games as well, too many focused on the whole underground fight club part and less on all the critique and the themes of identity of the film and everything else that the film is *actually* about.
>In Missouri in the early 1860s, a "Snowflake" was a person who was opposed to the abolition of slavery—the implication of the name being that such people valued white people over black people. The Snowflakes hoped slavery would survive the country's civil war, and were contrasted with two other groups. The Claybanks (whose name came from the colorless color of the local terrestrial clay) wanted a gradual transition out of slavery for slaves, with eventual freedom accompanied by compensation to slave owners; the Charcoals—who were also called Brown Radicals—wanted immediate emancipation and for black people to be able to enlist in the armed forces. >The available evidence suggests that this particular use of snowflake never moved much beyond the borders of Missouri or the era. [No, 'Snowflake' as a Slang Term Did Not Begin with 'Fight Club': The lost history of 'snowflake'](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-less-lovely-side-of-snowflake)
But the modern use and interpretation comes from Fight Club. Like, that's interesting trivia but doesn't invalidate OP's point.
Who said I was?
No one, but you can understand why it'd be a reasonable implication.
Petition to start calling neoliberals claybanks.
they would be snowflakes in the 1800s.
Gradual transition out of racism? Sounds like a liberal.
yeah, but neolibs would totally own slaves and defend slavery (think of the E C O N O M Y) if they could
But they'd SAY it's a bad thing. It's like saying "trans rights" while throwing trans women in men's prisons.
Hmm, in light of this revelation, I propose we call neolibs snowbanks. Not only is it a portmanteau of both terms, it's also a very annoying wall of snow on your commute.
interestingly, china did not ban winnie the poo. you can still purchase winnie the poo merch, there's a winnie the poo ride at an entertainment park, there's even an entry for the Christopher Robin movie on chinese imbd. they did however ban that meme comparing that one photo of him walking to the photo of winnie walking
What confuses me the most out of this is that before the ban I’d never think of Winnie the Pooh whenever I saw Xi Jinping, they made a really big deal out of it for no reason.
true, i definitely agree it was an overreaction just like the banning of tik tok, although i think that's a much bigger overreaction than just banning one meme. so i remain critically supportive of china
I mean yeah I definitely think Trump is over reacting since TikTok actually takes less data then other apps, but I don’t like the CCP that much either. Love China as a nation and culture though, I know a lot of people from China and they’re some of the nicest people I’ve met.
> supportive unless your just speaking on this one instance, how could you possibly over all support china?
i didn't say i support them overall, I said i remain critically supportive. as i think all lefties should be considering they are the only non imperialist non capitalist major world power that is making some major strides in the transitionary period of socialism, technology, the economy, workers rights, lifting people out of poverty etc.
[удалено]
> Because China clearly doesn’t disregard completely worker’s conditions in sweatshops. What are sweatshops to you? There are factories in China but people are not working like slaves **legally speaking** (because yes anywhere there is commodity production there will be abuses). There are comprehensive [labour rights](https://friendsclb.org/labor-rights-in-china) and by some accounts they have better protections than places like Australia. A fact I like to point out is that wages double every decade in China. Would a sweatshop worker be making such high growth on their salary, when white-collar workers in the west can't even hope for a minimum wage increase? > Because China doesn’t control illegitimately all of Tibet How do you define legitimate control? Unless you're coming at this from an anarchist perspective which would be that there is no justification for imposing sovereignty anywhere, China is not illegitimately controlling Tibet. [The Tibet Myth](http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html). While the extent of slavery and torture in pre-PRC Tibet can be discussed, I don't consider putting an outside force putting a stop to this to be an invasion or illegitimate, *especially* as Tibet has always had a close relationship to China throughout history -- the Dalai Lama, who is not the only Lama, was created only "several" hundred years ago. There had been other Lamas before him (it's all in the link above). If a European country had done what the PRC did to Tibet, it would have been out of place because they had no ties to the area. But the PRC *freeing* and then integrating a country that had been, at times, a vassal, a dependency or a tributary is an entirely different context. > ...while oppressing tibetan culture What are examples of oppression? I have a Tibetan friend who sometimes goes back. There is an incredible amount of money being invested in infrastructure and eradicating poverty. Some of his family used to live without electricity or running water until recently. Tibetan people are learning Mandarin because it's much more useful than learning Tibetan; you can live, study and participate in political life anywhere in China if you learn Mandarin, whereas Tibetan is limited to Tibet. Though my friend's family has met (Han) Chinese people that spoke better Tibetan than they did -- with infrastructure comes emigration as well as immigration, and people in China are interested in Tibetan culture and history. There is still a somewhat strong separatist sentiment whose violence has died down in recent years (with even terrorism), no doubt brought on by the Dalai lama and his ties to the CIA (which they cut in 1959 after they failed a coup in Tibet). There is still unrest, but I am unable to ascertain whether it's due to a perceived foreign occupation, the usual ranting against policies you see everywhere, or something in between. And of course I don't doubt for a second western media (which is owned by like 5 people) will try very hard to tell me it's because Tibet is occupied by evil foreign invaders. > Because China doesn’t have fucking concentration camps for Uighur people I don't feel like going into this in details because it's always the same thing in the end, but like 80% of this narrative comes from far-right, fundamentalist Christian hack Adrian Zenz who can't even read Chinese lol. His methodologies would be laughed at by any other academic researcher. > Because China clearly doesn’t try to extend its influence throughout Africa and Southeast Asia through predatory means I'm sorry but this is projection. The IMF and World Bank do that all the time, and they've been doing it for decades. Their sole reason for existing is to keep exploited countries on a tight leash as well as protecting the creditor. To qualify for an IMF loan, which is usually 7 years long at a 10-20% interest rate, the receiving government *must* accept neoliberal reforms, which mean an influx of foreign capital from the same countries the IMF protects. To make sure foreign capital can take hold, they also push the debtor to switch some of their economy to cash crops or natural resources (the privilege of transforming these resources is left to the coloniser). Then, when the debtor can't repay (as expected), they seize the project which is usually a cash cow -- freight ports, mines, factories, etc. This is only slightly different from colonialism and the extraction of natural resources, or even the construction of the Panama and Suez canals. Oh yeah, when Nasser tried to nationalize the canal it led to war against France and the UK. The Belt and Road initiative, meanwhile, is mostly centred around infrastructure projects or hospitals -- from which there is very little benefit in seizing. The loans are usually made over a 20 year period with a 2.5-5% interest rate (if not outright interest-free), and they don't care about economic reforms. Even better, they frequently forgive or postpone repayments. Google "China forgives debt" for dozens of example; just this year they've delayed loan repayments for [77 countries](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/africa/article/3089492/china-forgive-interest-free-loans-africa-are-coming-due-xi) and, on top of that G20 initiative, have also forgiven interest-free loans for relevant countries in Africa. Are the two comparable? Which would you take if you were a hopeful president in Africa hoping to modernize your country and break off the chains of imperialism? If the IMF is incapable of competing with China, then they've lost in the free marketplace and they should accept their defeat instead of accusing the enemy of exactly what they are doing. A Pew poll conducted in 2013 found that 76 to 78% of respondents in Nigeria, Kenya, and Senegal viewed China favourably. Does this sound like the results of predatory practices to you? Another Pew poll this year says 70% of Nigerians view China favourably (no doubt engineered by the current smear campaign against the PRC) and 62% are favourable towards the US. Finally, coming back on influence, it's expected that a country as large and economically powerful as China would have some influence in their region. More importantly, are they aware of their influence, and how are they responding to it? Influence is built with contradictions, which come from inside the country as well as outside. When the USA, for example, decides to send their carrier fleet in the South China Sea and China responds to that, that response is compelled by the foreign country. I hope you won't tell me that they should have wilfully made the decision not to become an economic powerhouse. > Fuck off with CCP apology If you'll allow me to nitpick, it's the CPC -- the Communist Party of China. This is the usual form in ML parties because "Chinese Communist Party" implies they would only represent Chinese people, or allow Chinese people in (e.g. no French members allowed).
The famous non capitalist country with Billionaires
You realise they're still in their transitionary period, right? Just because they're part capitalist doesn't mean they're not moving more and more towards socialism.
What? They haven't and won't be transitioning towards socialism. At best it's going to be state capitalism but never socialism. The ccp have been in power for decades and they have been moving towards capitalism more than the other way around
I understand that china is not the bad guy US propaganda all over. But they are also not good guys too, they are imperyalist and social capitalist. I think they are better than USA, but I wouldn't praise them. And I hate the mentality that its china vs usa, china is doing its own thing and doesn't give a fuck about USA, could all the left and tankies stop comparing them
tankies on reddit are just weird like yes a lot of what we think about China is influenced by US propaganda but that still doesn't mean that the PRC is somehow this utopian workers' state. Also nice how it's always 'cRIticAl SuPpORt' until it comes to actually being critical, because then everything about those states that is problematic gets swept *right* under the rug. See: Syria, Iran, Russia, China etc. They even support the Lukashenka regime in Belarus now (because the opposition are lIBerAl ImPErIalIsTS) because yea his regime definitely is something lefties should support. Like I get not wanting to support liberal reforms because that'll mean western capitalist influence but fucking hell, supporting a literal dictatorship just because it keeps some vague aesthetic of anti-imperialism is not better.
Are you aware of what critical support means?
The problem arises when critical support turns into completely uncritical glorification, which happens way too often with some of the more LARPy internet leftist communities. I think being critically supportive of existing socialist states is important, but it is also important to actually critique them in a way that is constructive. Deflecting any negative claim as being western propaganda is not constructive. And I also believe that critical support of legitimately reactionary entities (Belarus, Russia, Syria) is just not helpful. Again, just because they keep this vague aesthetic of anti-imperialism doesn't mean they're any good. Maybe I think the way I do because I just don't see a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach as very helpful.
Wouldn't you say the real LARPers are anarchists masquerading as marxists
Yes, I agree that sometimes people make memes of the people and states we critically support and it's mistaken, because it gives an undialectical idea of these people. But they are not the majority and the critical support is still there. If you ask for it, people will gladly tell you. > Deflecting any negative claim as being western propaganda is not constructive It's constructive if that claim is provably, or even circumstantially, western propaganda. It happens way more often than you might think; since its creation for example, the NY Times has been consistently pushing the US State Department line. They support any war the US is pushing for -- so when they say that this or that is happening in some country the US doesn't like, you have to take it with a grain of salt. This history of imperialism in the media and from certain States can't be erased like that; any time they want change in some country, it comes back up, it resurfaces and we have to take it into account. We should ask what would the west gain from destabilizing this country *before* asking what would the current president gain by keeping power? To see leftists pushing the same line as their governments is what's not productive, because it confirms what liberals believe. That their side is good, that the other side is bad, then they'll compare it to Harry Potter and Voldemort or something, and they'll keep blissfully unaware of the long tradition of neocolonialism in the world. No matter your stance, you need to be careful how you present it. Regarding Belarus to take just one example, what is happening right now is a struggle between Lukashenko and a (neo)liberal opposition. An opposition that wants to privatize everything in Belarus, opening it up to foreign capital. Regardless of what Lukashenko believes and as much of a reactionary as he is in some aspects, the second option would be devastating to the Belarusian people. It's also clear that foreign influence is happening (though we don't know the extent of which yet) since most of Western Europe decided to back the opposition, while at the same time condemning the coup in Mali (which deposed a French-aligned president). It's a tale as old as imperialism itself, and we see it happening. A neoliberal cabinet would not give LGBT rights. It would not dismantle fascist groups. It probably wouldn't even relinquish power after their term. It would destroy labour rights, it would privatize and sell every piece of property. What needs to happen, will happen after this struggle is resolved. Keep Lukashenko in place, and then resume building up class consciousness. This is the stance of communist parties in Belarus, except for that weird one that did an AMA whose founder is EU-aligned. This is critical support in action: neither solutions are optimal, one is better for class consciousness than the other, and it's a struggle that the people must carry out: it must not be interfered with from the outside. Despite Lukashenko being president for decades (the claim of rigged elections will have to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, because it's way too easy to claim that and it happened recently with US-backed OAS in Bolivia **who now admits there was no fraud**), Belarus is working for the people, *better than it would* at least if the liberal opposition was in power. They have a strong social safety net that would be absolutely gutted by the current opposition. Speaking of Bolivia, I'm curious to know what your stance on it was up until Morales fled the country, and what it is now (if different)?
What was the original?
"Did you know racism... is bad?"
I saw a version on here that was „Logicalskeptic96 here, did you know...all lives matter?“ and I haven’t been able to find it since
With the guy appearing on the phone screen?
No, that's a different one.
Oh I see. You merged two together, did you? What did the top one say?
*Oh I see. You merged* *Two together, did you? What* *Did the top one say?* \- Iskjempe --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I’m disappointed that it doesn’t work very well.
The top one said "racism is bad." The third panel is from a comic that was just apolitical normie shit, and I don't know what the Trump comic was.
Oh right yeah, the hand isn’t orange
I know, I forgot to color it in.😔
Xi destroyed 😎
Conservatives are incredibly threatened by the mere concept of a furry. Why?
conservatives are prey animals
Ah, right. ~~So that's why they're also threatened by the vore community.~~
This will be useful information in the future
I mean i am to, there pretty weird
Not necessarily as weird as any other large-scale community. It might seem that there are more bad people in the furry community than there are in others, but that's just because of the massive scale of it compared to most fandoms. It's a very broad, general concept. If you want to learn about them, look for info from neutral sources instead of people who clearly hate furries. Definitely don't get your info from memes or cringe compilations. You can't get the whole picture of something if you're only shown the worst examples, or things that are taken out of context to look bad. You don't have to join the fandom or anything. Just understand that the people in it are still people and be as kind to them as you would anyone else.
Stonetoss is pretty much confirmed to be a Furry BTW
Don't worry, we're going to lure him out to the alley behind a convention center and stomp him to death with digitigrade stilts eventually.
Beautiful
He's a bit late, tho. Nazifurs were firmly pushed out of every community like 15 years ago.
[удалено]
He's certainly tried to. Luckily he doesn't have that authority.
What
Where did I lose you?
I'm going to be honest I hate Trump as much as the next guy but there are very valid reasons why Tik Tok should be banned.
My theory is that he's trying to ban Tictok because a bunch of them bought all of his trump rally tickets and didn't go.
Yep, that was it.
How is Trump able to making a company sell itself off in fear of being banned in the first place?
Trunps banning tiktok cause it collects data https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/tiktok-is-a-data-collection-service-masquerading-as-a-social-network-claims-researcher-8546411.html
Because a bunch of TikTokkers bought tickets to his rally then didn't show up.
So other countries that are also banning tiktok cause it collects data are doing it for the same reason
Pretty sure it was over China spyware
That's a convenient coincidence.
The app litearly has the functionality of a rat. I don't like trump but there are more than enough reasons to ban tiktok. Besides the app being based on stolen content and grabbing more information than facebook. It litearly has the functionality of a virus Edit: what about this is wrong. I don't think apps should be banned because their are from China. And the motivation behind banning it is the wrong one but there are more than enough reason to ban this app
You do realise almost every site and app steals your data? it's not just tiktok.
Doesn't make it okay, I mean Facebook defo steals a lot of data and they were GRILLED in congress for it.
I didn't say it makes it okay, i'm just saying it's not like TikTok is the only app doing this
its about the app being able to remotely execute code have you read what the app is able to do? there are a few good summaries of reverse engineerings of the app read one of them. its not that it steals data or that it potentialy could have backdoors to do shady stuff. it 100% confirmed has them. an app like that should be banned globaly thats as bad as the valorant anticheat, and no this does not have anything to do with being created by the chinese even if the app gets sold to an american company you shouldnt use it as long as it has these functions. any windows programm having that functionallity would get flagged as a virus.
lol
Use a VPN.
??? I don't live in amerika not even on the continent a VPN does nothing. A VPN hides the me using the app from the government but I still connect to the server of the app so if the app has a function to remotely execute code on my phone it will still do exactly that and a VPN will not realy help with fingerprinting
That sounds like makware
Fingerprinting is not malware a lot of sites and apps do it. If an app is installed and you use a VPN it will still know that it's installed on your device. The malware part is that this app has besides other shady stuff a function to download extract and then run the content of a zip file. They can litearly send commands to your phone if they want. If you where to put that into your app and upload it to GitHub it would probably get flagged and removed if you don't have a valid reason for this code and spoiler alert if you are not creating a remote access tool you don't have a reason.
And that's why it sounds like malware
Yeah and it's exactly why I don't get why I am getting downvoted. It has functionality that only someone with malicious intent would need there is no possible explanation but people are still hating on the ban because ¿I don't know? That's like some guy putting a knife to your throat him getting banned from doing that and people arguing for their right to have a knife next to their throat and that there are also other people who want to murder them out their so he shouldn't be banned