My only gripe with this is that the state in its current form cannot be trusted to be an impartial judge of what constitutes hate speech. We see today that many states around the world are using anti hate speech laws to suppress criticism of the state of Israel. Giving the state broad powers to crack down on speech that it deems hateful will inevitably result in the state deciding that all criticism of its actions or the actions of its allies constitutes hate speech.

As an alternative, I prefer that hate speech be met with social consequences rather than criminal ones.

I’m responding to the meme which presents learning and critique as separate and mutually exclusive. In order to learn from something you have to critique it, and if you believe that China is not perfect then you know this and should agree with me.

There’s also another thing you’re doing that I see MLs do all the time, which is posit that Chinese socialism is uniquely suited to China and that it must be implemented differently in other places. While I do agree that this is the case, I often see MLs use this argument to excuse flaws in the implementation of socialism in China as necessary alterations required due to the particular conditions and historical circumstances in which it was created.

IMO there were many wrong turns and mistakes that China made in its socialist transition that have had lasting negative consequences, and though they can often be explained by China’s particular conditions and historical circumstances, that doesn’t excuse them.

Surely you know precisely what I’m referring to.

I didn’t want to assume that you were unashamedly calling for war crimes, but thank you for spelling it out and removing all doubt. What you are hoping for is morally reprehensible.

What does “going all out” mean in this context?

Learning and critique are the same thing. If you look at China and go “this is perfect in every way and we should copy it,” then you aren’t actually learning anything at all. In my experience MLs don’t get angry with anarchists and others critical of China because they don’t learn from Chinese socialism, but because they don’t like the conclusions they’ve made.

I’ve only seen Andor so I don’t know if the lore was stated or implied in the original trilogy, but aren’t the rebellion an alliance of multiple revolutionary groups with different ideas for what comes after, but more broadly want to restore the Republic?

The warehouse fire thing is just a case of Apophenia. The one toilet paper warehouse arson caused people to go looking for local news reports of warehouse fires and - because they happen all the time - they found them. That doesn’t mean they’re connected or that there’s a wave of arsons vis à vis resistance against corporations. There has been no actual uptick in warehouse fires.

The problem people had with his reddit account was that he was a raging communist lol. I believe that he was naive enough during his deployment to get a Nazi tattoo without knowing, I’m personally more concerned by the fact that after his 4th deployment he returned to the middle east as a Blackrock mercenary guarding Abu Ghraib prison, the one infamous for torture.

In spite of this though, it’s better that he wins than Janet Mills or Susan Collins.

Alcohol has also just been more prevalent in human cultures dating back to prehistory. Some of the earliest evidence we have of permanent human settlements were breweries, theorized to have been built by people who still lived semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles. That would mean that humans first started making permanent settlements and doing large-scale agriculture only to produce alcohol, and still mainly relied on hunting and gathering for their caloric needs. Other drugs / intoxicants have been used by humans for at least as long, but none have been so central to the development of civilization and culture than alcohol.

Plenty of species self-destruct. The difference with humans is that we’re aware of our own self-destruction and are continuing it anyway.

It’s what the kids these days are calling “friend-slop,” which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s just that most of the value comes from creating zany situations for your coop pals to get into and let hilarity ensue. It’s a bit like a lot of card games in that way, it’s simple because it mostly just has to get out of the players’ way and allow social interaction to happen.

dont know how web designer as a industry is doing now.

Bereft with AI slop following sweeping layoffs, so not well.

Modern states suspend the rights of individuals to lifer or liberty as a punishment for breaking a rule. Rules like “don’t rape people”.

They also do it for rules like “wrong skin color,” “wrong country of origin,” “wrong sexuality or gender identity,” “born into poverty and stole food,” “suffering from drug addiction,” or even “possessed a completely harmless drug like weed.” And the punishment is often the total depravation of rights and forced labor tantamount to slavery.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike from stealing loaves of bread.”

At least in theory, you can move to another nation or campaign for better treatment in essentially all modern states, exempting a small group of pariah states that still mostly don’t rape people as punishment.

This wasn’t a good argument in feudal society when peasants could leave and find another Lord or live on their own, and it’s not a good argument now. Choice is pointless when all your choices share the same constraints.

Not a single person I’ve seen has so much as suggested any mechanism whatsoever that would keep “self organizing collectives” from becoming fetit pools of bigotry and violence. We know that will happen because such groups arise in every nation already, but their impact is curbed specifically by the power of the state.

What mechanism prevents states from becoming fetid pools of bigotry and violence, and how has it been working so far? The power of the state does not curb this behavior, it curbs its rivals while engaging in that very behavior themselves by maintaining a monopoly on violence.

“Get rid of the government and we’ll all do the right thing” is libertarian bullshit to cover their glee at taking things away from others. If you aren’t a pro-rape libertarian, figure out how your proposed system would protect the vulnerable at least as well as modern states do.

Anarchy is not the lack of government, it’s horizontal governance. Hierarchy is not necessary for community policing or restorative justice. I’m not an American Libertarian which is an irrational ideology, as it wants capitalism without the state, which is impossible because capitalism is enforced by the state. Without the state protecting private property there can be no capitalism.

What stops a self-organizing collective from becoming racist, sexist, transohobic, and pro-rape?

What stops a state from becoming the same?

Modern states at least have the benefit of a basic theory that they cannot simply un-person people who live within their borders.

What are you talking about? Most modern states routinely strip people within and outside of their borders of rights, deport, murder, or enslave them.

Without the backing of the Israeli state they would not be so untouchable.

Anarchy is a great ideal, but there are some things governments do that we shouldn’t trust to self-organizing collectives.

What makes states more trustworthy than self-organizing collectives?

They’re making an effort to make them illegal too.

Nice, more instructions to send to revolutionaries in Myanmar.

Not only did they suspend him with pay, but he succeeded in doing what he set out to do, which was get a rise out of someone to give his fellow bastards an excuse to arrest them. The article states that his encounter led to an altercation resulting in a teenage girl being arrested.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It’s wild that he’s referencing this document in opposition to those seeking to alter or abolish their government - believing it has become destructive of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - in order to make it more likely to effect their safety and happiness. Progressives are acting in the spirit of those values which saw the American revolution take place by acting perfectly in line with what the Declaration of Independence clearly states is our right.