The goal is to debunk verifiable lies fed to you by the West. The post makes no mention of how good or evil they were, only that they definitely did not say these very specific evil things. If it happens to cause you to reconsider your conclusion that these people are evil, a conclusion also fed to you by the same Western propaganda, that’s your business.

LAMBO /s

Honestly when I tried this a while back it just made me miss a CRT monitor even more. It might be nostalgic for some people, but for me it’s a lot of the bad parts of a CRT but running on an LCD so it also has the good parts of neither.

Damnit now I’m tempted to drag out my junker VGA CRT and put it on my desk.

was not a medical condition and just a word

It is just a word. It means to delay or the opposite of “advance” and is still used like that in industries like aviation and terms like fire removedant.

But when you use it to call someone stupid, that’s when you’re using it in the context of ablism and as a slur.

Similar to the term for a female dog, which is still used in veterinary medicine and research to mean an actual dog that is female. Though like the R word, the context as a slur is gradually discouraging its use even as its original meaning because people don’t want to risk having it misunderstood.

Piece of shit. Simple and to the point. Shit’s pretty gross and it’s universal human instinct to avoid it. Maybe even shithead if you want a single word.

Asshole. Gender neutral and not tied to ethnicity since we all have one. Maybe even going further and calling someone an asshole related condition like prolapsed rectum or hemorrhoid, things that can happen to anyone, are pretty painful and definitely to be avoided, but AFAIK were never conditions that were heavily marginalized or shamed.

Clown or fool. Clowns/fools are types of characters people played historically (and still do?), IMO it doesn’t imply anything about a person’s actual intelligence or mental state, only their actions. You’re not born a clown or fool, but you can definitely act like one. Also lends itself to a snarky 🤡 emoji I’ve seen some people here use instead of typing out an insult.

Though there could be additional context or history to any of these terms I’m not aware of that push them into one of the -ist categories, IDK I’m not a linguist.

IIRC it refers to how rural farmers’ necks are often sunburned and red.

Just a reminder, you can’t prove they’re not still conscious somewhere in their mind. Brain “dead” is a misnomer because having dead, rotting tissue in your skull will kill you pretty quickly anyway. You would at the very least have to remove the brain and IDK if you can still keep the body alive then.

Keeping them alive normally honestly sounds like torture if there’s anything resembling a consciousness still in there, this is just slavery.

Just make sure you choose rich parents when getting conceived smh

OK, face of Karl Marx then. The German guy who never even set foot in the USSR.

Oh wait you think that’s bad too.

What about Mao-no.

What about Che Guev-no.

Ho Chi-no.

Venez-no.

What about the Paris commune? No? Still bad in your mind?

Marxist Austria? Nah I’m sure the army that put an end to that is preferable according to you. They called themselves socialist with none of the Soviet imagery after all!

Even if we completely rebranded socialism you’d make it your mission to add the Soviet imagery back in and remind everyone of it. Like y’all do for decidedly capitalist bandaids like student loan forgiveness or food stamps that don’t even have anything to do with socialism.

You’re a hypocrite for asking me not to or pointing it out.

No? I’m definitely what people like you call an “authoritarian seeseepee tankie” who supposedly loves suppressing speech for sport. My comment was perfectly inline (get it? cause I toe the party line?) with the totalitarian dictatorship aspirations I definitely totally have.

The irony being that the boomers who say the “builds character” shit had a vastly easier life compared to their parents and grandparents, who fought literal world wars. They think all societal change before them was good (including stuff like colonialism which they see as “civilizing” the savage natives) but any progress after them is the devil because it means they might have to change their behaviour or worldviews, hell, or even the idea that people they think are less than them getting less disadvantaged and oppressed than before which I guess make them jealous or something?

anarchist erasure

You know you can just repost this with the anarchist symbol pasted over the hammer and sickle in response right? Like you think the OP presumably did to your symbol. If you care, there’s nothing stopping you from erasing us tankies right back, we can handle it. You could even snarkily title it “Perspectives about life (fixed)” or something. Go crazy, this is literally the meme community.

Also, ironic that an anarchist is protesting someone covering up their symbol to express a different thought. No kings or masters or hierarchy but an abstract symbol on a shitpost is sacred and can’t be touched?

“DUHH, IT’S BECAUSE SPEECH IN CHINA IS CENSORED AND YOU’LL LITERALLY GET SENT TO A XINJIANG CONCENTRATION CAMP IF YOU TRIED BEING A VLOGGER”

As a general rule of thumb, any in-store prepared food in a large grocery store (the ones that come in the store’s own packaging) was probably raw food that had been sitting for ages and they couldn’t sell in time. They’ll literally cut mold out of fruits and slice up the rest for those plastic platters. Every time they re-print a label, it resets the expiry date and you have no idea how many times they’ve done that and just shuffled food around by turning it into different forms.

CBC Marketplace video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxCT_D6HBd8

Define “doing things which enable you to survive.” In my definition, that doesn’t involve being king or exploiting others to hoard more wealth than you could ever hope to spend. You need some minimum amount of resources to survive but hoarding many times more than you need doesn’t help you survive and only harms others.

“If a monkey hoards more bananas than it can eat, causing its peers to starve while most of the bananas rot in its pile, scientists will study its brain to find out what the hell is wrong with it. But when a human does it, they get celebrated under capitalism.”

Also, it was once human nature to flee from fire, but once we learned to control it, it became an integral part of our lives. Human “nature” changes over time because your brain is pretty much a blank slate when you’re born and doesn’t fully finish structuring itself until your 20s. Your entire childhood is spent developing your “nature” that you’ll have for your adult life (and even then you can change it at will even in adulthood if you change your living conditions), which is why we’re more influenced by the conditions we grow up in than any sort of innate biology. What “nature” was best for hunter gatherer or even medieval times are totally obsolete in our modern day, so they stop being our default “nature” due to children no longer growing up in those conditions.

The idea that your nature is influenced by your conditions isn’t even unique to humans. Most animals are the same, a house cat or dog will learn from a very young age how to beg for food from their owners while a feral cat/dog won’t because that’s not beneficial for their survival when they’re not a pet. Hell, house cats keep making kitten sounds because their owners keep treating them like kittens, while feral cats stop meowing once they leave their parents. Animals born and raised in captivity in general often show completely different behaviors and personality compared to wild animals of the same species, because their brains are literally structured differently due to growing up in different conditions.

Yes. Because it benefited them over others. Humans are capable of choosing to do things that benefit them and it has nothing to do with their “nature”. Human nature is to not die and in the ages when humans could barely produce enough food for their own survival, it was beneficial to be in a position of power because it let you control the resources, ensuring you had enough for yourself and maybe some of your subjects as an afterthought. Marxism does not reject the notion that power benefits the people who have then, in fact that’s a core fact that Marxism is based on, and it calls out the fact that feudal/monarchist/capitalist power benefits the ruling class by subjugating and exploiting the working class, and proposes that fully collective control of resources will benefit everyone much more equally than the current system. I don’t think you have to agree with Marxism’s proposed solution to this to recognize the problem it points out. It asserts that because we have lived in such systems our whole lives, we think it’s human nature when in reality a person born and living in some other system (Marxist or otherwise) will think their system is human nature, because in reality no system is and they’re all abstract inventions with nothing to do with our neurobiology or evolution.

For a non political example, I write code all day because it benefits me and I think it’s the most normal and intuitive thing ever, even though I doubt programming was something humans evolved to do, we figured it out ourselves and it had nothing to do with our nature. You literally have to learn and practice abstract computational thinking while learning to program because it’s very unintuitive at times compared to how humans think by default, yet people learn it just fine and once you do, it becomes your nature.

The cool thing about humans is we’re not bound to natural instincts and can choose to live however we want. I think we should leverage this ability instead of using it as a justification for maintaining the same broken systems that have let us down over and over again.

Because humans experiment with societal rules as societies were developing and get into self reinforcing loops that go on long after everyone’s forgotten why it happened in the first place.

Human nature is to form societies. What happens in those societies and how they are structured are the result of chaotic interactions and competing thought that, again, are the result of material conditions those humans find themselves in.

There are plenty of societies that don’t strictly follow the Roman/European system of power. Japan for example had their emperor reduced to a symbolic position long before European contact, but even though the emperor had most of his real power taken away, everyone still called him emperor and worshipped him because he was so important to their culture, power or not. Meanwhile, in what would be modern day India, multiple different religions arose based on selfless sacrifice for others and rejection of indulgence and pleasure in favor of self reflection and simple living, with many people throughout history in the region (princes, heirs of family fortunes, etc) fully rejecting their very privileged lifestyles to embrace aestheticism. Same with ancient Greek stoic and cynic philosophers many of which came from rich and powerful families yet deliberately choose to reject all of it. That all seems pretty against “human nature” no? Then you had the Indigenous tribes of the world who practiced small egalitarian societal groups and did perfectly fine until Europeans intervened.

Any system predicated on obtaining as much wealth or power as possible will see people fixating on that and eventually divorcing the wealth/power itself from the material conditions that they arose from. Why do you think so many corporations turn into death spirals where they try to increase profits at all costs, abandoning their actual products and customers, and then act all shocked when they inevetably go bankrupt due to no longer having a customer base because they alienated everyone with their shitty profit oriented practices? The only way to solve this is to change the system people live under.

Yes. When your rule is based on seizing wealth and power you’ll keep doing that perpetually so you don’t lose your place in the ruling class. The fact that they did that is more consistent with the Marxist notion that human “nature” is shaped by the material conditions they’re born into.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of peasants of that time fully accepted and even embraced their position due to all the religious brainwashing. Most had no real aspirations of power (supposedly despite their nature to desire power) because they’ve been taught their whole life that it’s better for that to be taken care of by someone else that “God” supposedly chose. If anything, our uncritical acceptance of our place within capitalism is closer to what the serfs thought.

Capitalism arose from European feudalism. Which in turn arose from Christianity. Which in turn became mandated by the Roman Empire right before it totally coincidentally collapsed. The decisions behind this progression were limited to a tiny subset of the local human population, the ruling class which back then was basically seen as a completely different (superior) race compared to the commoners and peasants, to the point they chose to breed with their own relatives instead of polluting their blood with that of the people below them. Therefore, they absolutely did not represent the wishes of most humans at the time and certainly did not represent the “nature” of most humans, just the ones most corrupted by power and exceptionalism in a system they created specifically to keep themselves in power and separate from the masses. They’re not human nature, they’re the societal cancer that actively rejected and suppressed real human nature.