i don't think i've ever encounted a form of communism that wasn't leftist; to me it seems inherently leftist.

i don't suppose you have any suggestions to read more about that?

(i am u/wednesday, i changed my username)

plan?

uh... drink vodka and shitpost on fedi i guess?

but if you're playing with someone else, and they host the game, you can use all the DLC they own even if you don't own it.

i excluded Blair's Labour because of his change to clause IV, which was an explicit statement that the party was no longer socialist (leftist).

Wilson's Labour is debatable, but that was the last time 'Old Labour' was in power.

thanks!

i kind of touched on this in my other comment, and while i was writing this i considered talking about whether a person has a duty to, for example, save a drowning person. i don't really know what the answer is - i feel like that's something i would do, but if it's a "duty", where does it come from?

i'm not sure if it's me or liberals who are supposed to have a shallow understanding, but i've heard a lot of liberals argue that "a foetus is not a person" or something along those lines, and a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that this is argument is used to advocate for abortion.

perhaps i'm reading the wrong liberals, but i haven't heard this argument from that direction before - for example i feel like most liberals would say that killing a newborn child is morally wrong (and indeed this is illegal in all liberal countries i'm aware of), so to defend abortion there has to be a distinction between a child and a foetus - otherwise how could they defend one but not the other?

but in any case my aim was less to have a go at liberals and more to explore an application of individualism, so perhaps i should have avoided mentioning them at all.

expandable content previews (especially for images and video) like you get with RES

also: flair

who?

and so we find the truth: covid-19 was creating in a lab by antifascists!

i feel like this story (while pretty funny) kind of illustrates the problem with them: they 'flop' because they are PR-driven and they realise the cops carrying someone away creates a striking photo for the press, like the one accompanying this article.

but creating photo-ops and 'raising awareness' doesn't actually do anything to prevent the destruction of the natural environment - everyone is already aware that it's happening, the problem is that nothing is being done about it. XR make it look like something is being done, when actually they do nothing.

also they recently made a press statement basically saying they're apolitical and (by implication) they don't think the cause of the problem is capitalism.

At least those who aren't anarchists believe they need idols because of how our society is structured

there's plenty of non-anarchists who aren't interested in idols. in fact i'd say this is fairly common among leftists of all types, and not just gayers either; i think most people have realised that this sort of "representation" does very little to help ordinary people.

Constructing a New International

hmm.

Tomorrow’s sessions include keynote speeches from Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein

hmm.

i've seen some conflicting claims about this - are boogaloos actually 'right-wing'? do they even have a coherent political philosophy?

edit: i mean i realise a lot of them are Nazis, but i'm not clear if that's actually part of the movement or not.

yeet food do crime

i'd rather see votes as "this does/does not contribute to the discussion", not "i do/do not agree with this", and i feel like raddle generally manages this okay. a random tankie ranting about anarkiddies or a lib going on about harm reduction are not contributing anything so they get downvoted, but i would never downvote a reasonable comment just because i disagree with it, and i would be annoyed if that happened to one of my comments.

if you really believe that voting is harm reduction, you should realise that voting for whoever the DNC nominates because "it's not Trump" is precisely the reason why they will never nominate a candidate who's the least bit progressive or left-wing. because they know "the left" will always vote for them, their only concern is being conservative enough to steal a few voters from the GOP. voting for this terrible candidate only ensures that the next candidate will be even worse.

and fuck you for trying to use people like me as a guilt trip for your shitty politics.

i'm curious about someone who's both satanist and anarchist; i always thought satanism was more of a right-wing philosophy, but i never really looked into it in much depth.

i imagine satanism is mostly compatible with individualist or egoist anarchism? is there much overlap between egoists and satanists outside of anarchism?

i tried Go once when i visited a German hackspace where it was apparently the local pastime. i didn't keep playing though, i'm not sure why... maybe i should give it another look.

i read the entire thing and i don't understand it either. i feel like maybe my own position is so different from the author's that i can't really fill in the parts he left out (perhaps because he thought they were too obvious to be worth mentioning).

for example: the answer to the question "do we need men?" is obviously: no. we don't need anyone or anything; we don't "need" the human race at all. so what would it mean to "need men"?

the main points the author seems to be making are: 1) many species reproduce asexually, and 2) there is no clear reason why sexual reproduction exists. but those are not new observations and i don't really understand what the article contributes to any ongoing discussion.

i'm left feeling that the article only really has value to a reader who is already very invested in gender essentialism and the idea that men somehow "must" exist, or are perhaps worried that "men don't have a purpose anymore" (and therefore must find a new one), which is such a tedious liberal / male-feminist argument that it's hardly even worth refuting.

i honestly can't read it as satirising patriarchy at all, or even criticising it in anything more than a very superficial way.