The other day I was looking up what Lenin said about Revolutionary Defeatism and it’s like reading it there’s no way he wouldn’t have spammed PPB at people lol

Lenin was a poster.

That would also be a reasonable approach, sure. Maybe it’d be better. But our approach hasn’t caused any problems as far as I’m aware, I’ve never seen anyone say that we didn’t have the pronouns they wanted, and I’m confident that if they did the mods would add the option for them, like what happened with doe/deer. We were just concerned about opening up an avenue of misuse, and it’s very rare that someone uses pronouns not on the list so it’s easy for the mods to accommodate when it happens.

none/use name
any
comrade/them
des/pair
doe/deer
e/em/eir
ey/em
fae/faer
he/him
hy/hym
it/its
love/loves
she/her
they/them
undecided
xe/xem
xey/xem
ze/hir

Fair enough, but it’s just a formality and idk of anyone ever being denied. We just do it that way to prevent trolls from putting helicopter jokes in there because we hate when the trolls are boring.

It’s been like a week lol. We’re mostly happy about federation but we still have closer ties to each other than to the fediverse, even if every instance defederated with us tomorrow we’d just go back to normal.

This was a concern we had when we were discussing how to handle pronouns, and it’s the reason that we decided not to have a custom field option. Instead, our policy is that we’ll add pronouns if someone requests them and they seem to be acting in good faith. We have a couple strange ones like doe/deer, but that’s because a longtime user used them and requested them, and doe never showed any signs that doe was a troll.

What the other user said was part of our reasoning for adopting them. On the cases where we’ve had trolls come in and use them, they tend to go mask off pretty quickly and get banned, and we don’t really care if they think their owning us somehow.

If you mean people use neopronouns to make people who hate neopronouns mad, I mean I don’t know how to distinguish unless you’re a mind reader but honestly who cares. You can use whatever neopronouns you want for whatever reason you want, unless it’s mocking trans people.

We stuck around for 3 years before being able to federate with anyone.

Smh get a better hiding spot

I can confirm that is correct

When I first saw that our employer and dear leader, President Xi Jinping of China, had found the post where we were engaged in vigorous debate over whether or not a group of anime girls were, “too sexy,” I was a little bit worried he was going to reprimand us for getting sidetracked from our assigned mission of destroying the West.

Instead, he offered some really insightful and nuanced commentary on the matter that completely reframed how I saw the issue, and made me realize just how important that question is to the establishment of global communism.

True, polls are fake, but idk a better way to estimate it.

It’s a joke to dunk on Reddit, it’s become part of our parlance so we tend to drop it pretty casually. I can see how it comes across as accusatory here, but I think the user probably didn’t mean anything by it.

I think it’s just certain emojis that are affected, I switched over to lemmygrad and it was a little larger but not huge

Extremely disappointed that this isn’t one of the emojis that becomes massive on other instances.

Lib: The American media doesn’t lie.

Leftist: Here’s evidence that it does, from Western sources

Lib: Ah, but at least those Western sources reported it!

Leftist: Alright, here’s evidence that it lies, from non-western sources

Lib: You don’t really believe that propaganda, do you?

Unfalsifiable orthodoxy.

But the only time I can ever think of Western media doing anything on the scale of censoring the 1989 Tiananmin Square Massacre is the Iraq MWD debacle.

As a rule the US government does not mislead its own citizens the way Russia and China do.

Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered for no reason to accomplish nothing but to line the pockets of Raytheon shareholders. And you write it off as if it doesn’t even matter.

No one, neither the politicians nor the journalists who knowingly lied to you faced any repercussions. Not only that, but in many cases, it’s the same people in the same positions with no reason not to do it again.

Even if you ignore all the other times that the media has lied, how many people do you believe died at Tiananmen Square to think that the two are remotely comparable?

I googled polls and I think there’s a clear majority (roughly 60-70%) that think each of them was a mistake, but there’s 25% who don’t say that about Vietnam so that’s probably a hard floor of psychos that will support any war in any context. That’s pretty consistent with the 20% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans who support bombing Agrabah, the fictional country from Alladin.

I’d like to think we don’t have a lot of those types on here but if we do they’re probably unreachable. But initial support for Iraq was around 80%, so a large number (possibly the majority) of USians followed the trajectory of being lured in by propaganda and then later turning against it, and those people I think are reachable if you can make them realize the same thing is happening again.

We need to learn from history. Appeasement emboldens fascists. Russia in Ukraine is like Germany in the Sudetenland.

There is a lot to learn from history beyond WWII. For example, one thing we can learn from is the history of the exact analogy you’re using being employed to justify wars. High ranking officials used that analogy to justify the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the War on Terror. Looking back, the analogy doesn’t hold up at all in any of those cases. But in each case, the propaganda push at the beggining of the war convinced large majorities of Americans to support it when it started. I don’t think there’s been a war since WWII that the US has been involved in where someone wasn’t invoking that analogy. Quotes

Another thing to learn from history is the direct context of the war. The conflict began between Ukraine and the separatists in 2014, and a cease-fire was signed to stop the bloodshed. Ukraine violated that cease-fire, and that’s what prompted Russian intervention.

The third point I want to make is that there’s another lesson that can be drawn from the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. Unlike Ukraine, the Czechs were actually in a military alliance with the Allies. They did not just stand by while a neutral country was invaded, but broke an agreement to throw them to the wolves. And the Czechs had no recourse to hold them accountable, because when you’re the dominant hegemon, rules don’t apply to you. And yet somehow, this is constantly being used as an example of why we should trust our leaders, in the same powerful and unaccountable position, to have the best interests of the people of other countries at heart?

I find that absurd. The lesson I take from that is that people in those positions can sacrifice huge numbers of people, entire countries, to horrible fates, just to serve their own interests. And feuling the conflict in Ukraine, while refusing to consider any peace negotiations, is doing exactly that. They’ll feed Ukrainians into the meat grinder the same way they’ll abandon Czechs to the Nazis, and the same way they brought death and destruction to the people of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many more.

Oh, and one last lesson from history:

…That policy which pretends to aspire to peace but unerringly generates war, the policy of continual preparation for war, the policy of meddlesome interventionism. There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest — why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome’s duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs (Joseph Schumpeter, writing in 1919)

Does that remind you of anything? Because it sounds a lot like US foreign policy to me.

deleted by creator