Jesus Christ so many of you on here are in love with your echo chambers aren’t you? Every other day there is something about instance wars and oh let’s see, whom do we want to exclude today. You don’t have to like what others have to say, but you have to be able to listen to them.

Gotcha thanks

Wait did world defederare from ml after all? I thought it hadn’t. Because people keep complaining about ml and I still see memes.ml and comments from ml users. Or is it one of these things where federation works in ways that are more complex than most of us assume? Is it that the other instances defederated from world? But I’ve seen ml users comment on my comments. Argh federarion is confusing…

Don’t we all love a strawman

I mean, Trump hate aside, I personally never thought of the song as gay. It has certainly such a wide appeal that it can be thought of as just a party song, surpassing whatever context may have provided inspiration for it. But reading the statement, I have to say that was a lot of words just to say it isn’t gay lol. And saying my wife will sue you for claiming something I wrote was gay sounds even sillier and like he’s trying to compensate for something.

Couldn’t have said this better. Memes and all. Kudos.

Thank you for the exchange, however I can see that you are mostly interested in educating me and I am not interested in such an imbalanced exchange. I have been through all this before, when the USSR and its fall were still very relevant topics. Also, as already discussed, I am not as passionate about this as you are. I guess we will both see where China is headed. I agree that markets do not cease under socialism, in fact I do not think they will ever cease to exist completely, people will continue to trade and barter at some scale and I think that is ok.

Hey thanks for making the effort. You are clearly more passionate about this than I am. And you clearly consider today’s China a case of “existing socialism”. I do not. And I’m surprised that a number of people still do. Indeed the Trotskyist left and other related currents in the West have always had to deal with the paradox of advocating communism while at the same time opposing most if not all regimes that claimed to be communist. On the other hand more traditional communists - some would call them Stalinists if we’re using labels - who would advocate for regimes that many considered oppressive and were happy to see fall (including everyone who considered such regimes to be a degeneration of the original revolutionary potential). Personally I don’t feel I have a big stake in this. I am more and more thinking that these are experiments that largely failed no matter how you look at it, and hope to see new movements that will update their repertoire, learn from the failings, and succeed better. I am not sure what form or shape such movements will take. But am also not betting on capitalism not leading to the destruction of the world sooner or later. When I sometimes appear to defend China it is because I do not think that western-style capitalism and liberal democracy are the only ways that capitalism can function.

These are people I know personally. So no, not online people. And some are organized, some were, it varies. They are at best ambivalent on China. The idea that if you identify as a communist, talk like a communist, or are member of a communist organization, you should automatically support China would be frankly absurd in my circles. A strong minority of communists were at best ambivalent on the USSR even back in the day, so this is not new. And yes there are also those who will identify with and feel the need to support any regime that is in name or in some of its practices “communist”. Whereas others will take a more critical stance. I am in Europe by the way, this may matter, I find that the way words are used across the pond sometimes varies. Even within Europe, in much of Eastern Europe I understand that “communist” and “Russophile ” are thought to go hand in hand. Not so in my country, not necessarily. Anyway, it’s complicated.

Oh I know quite a few communists who would absolutely not support the PRC. They wouldn’t shill for the US either. Nor for Russia nor the USSR for that matter.

No one should undertake hobbies because they are attractive to someone else. Unless you want to join groups where you can meet people you’re attracted to, then the activity is just an excuse to mingle. But you are more likely to find a hobby rewarding if you are genuinely interested in it, no matter what others think.

It is a mess, which is why I thought it’s intentional to make it difficult to apportion your dose of chocolate, in effect making you eat more. And all this stuff about inequality sounds like the worst BS possible.

BG3 vibes anyone?

This looks more like a scythe that doubles as a weapon to me

Welp, regardless of the very real issues in these countries, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that precedes an invasion, as it did when Putin started publicly questioning Ukraine’s status as a country. This helps cement my assessment that Israel is going to go for a larger land grab with the pretext of building a buffer zone for the protection of its citizens.

Ok makes sense. Thanks.

When it comes to cosmetics I thought it’s the other way around because men who will buy cosmetics are generally higher earners or something like that, so they’re generally willing to pay more.

You know what, we don’t need to be always on the same page. Sure, it’s good when we are, but we don’t need to echo each other’s views and that’s ok :) Cheers

Hmm well if you don’t mind a bit of unsolicited advice, I would say that (from the frustrations you express) maybe you, like most of us, enter discussions online with a mind to convince others of the absolute truth of what you believe in. It is actually more productive to listen to them, then ask why they feel the way they do about certain topics, and then try to see if you can find common ground with them. Only then can you perhaps influence their views a little. But if you are earnest about the exchange, you must allow them to influence you too.

I know that’s hard, I fail often myself and become frustrated.

Of course there are conspiracy theories and falsehoods that are absolutely bonkers and it stymies me too why some people will gobble it all up, but a wise person is never too sure of their own truths either. Funny thing is we are all biased one way or another, we just tend to be blind to our own biases. Of course some truths are supported by more evidence than others, but especially when it comes to politics it is less about the absolute truth of a matter than it is about adopting a particular perspective. No single perspective is more valid than others inherently. It is all just ways of looking at things. Of course one can try and come up with objective criteria, but that too is quite hard.

I am aware, and it’s good you brought this up. All sides are gullible, but some perhaps more than others. Although, the very study you posted a link to states clearly that other studies have had mixed results. Are you posting this one because, as a political scientist, you know the field and studies referenced and can assert with confidence acquired through disciplined study that this work provides better proof that conservatives are indeed more gullible (where other studies failed), or are you posting it because it appears to confirm your a priori views of conservatives?

Apart from the actual truth of the matter, I made my comment above because I believe that looking down on conservative concerns and viewpoints - something that is naturally aided by any perceptions of conservatives as gullible simpletons - has not served liberals well. In fact, it’s something that right wing populists have been able to exploit quite well to gain the sympathy and ultimately the vote of large swathes of said simpletons.