Even from an anti-China perspective, this is a ludicrous statement. Xi has executive authority, but he only has it because he has the support of the Central Committee, which itself only has power thanks to the support of the rest of the national government. Xi is not a wizard who can make a billion people bend to his whims and he cannot wrestle them into submission. If you want to develop an anti-China position that is more useful (true or not), you still need to accept the basic fact that states are run by classes. So the question is, is China run by bureaucrats, private capitalists, or the people?

You don’t need to answer that to me. My point is just that autocracy in the sense of one person controlling the state is genuinely a myth, whether it’s Xi, Trump, Hitler, or King Henry. They were all supported by and ultimately needed to answer to their respective states’ ruling classes (which themselves subjugated at least one other class and might be working cooperatively with one or more other classes).

but I also say that I still don’t like the Chinese state because I don’t consider that (and ML in general) a form of worker-owned means of production (whether or not you agree)

“Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production” is a syndicalist distortion of socialism. Workers should control the means of production, as in their operation should be based on popular consensus, but “ownership” suggests something like cooperatives (or, you know, syndicates), which operate on the same market system and a permutation of petite-bourgeois races to the bottom that we see under capitalism.

The people must control the state, “win the battle of democracy,” and via their control of the state dictate what happens to the means of production. Specific ownership is a secondary concern, though I agree with what I assume your position is, that the bourgeoisie have been granted too much power and authority in China.

Are you a free speech absolutist? Can I post your address with a rough outline of your schedule and say that you deserve to be murdered? Not telling anyone to do it, mind you, merely that you “have it coming.”

I don’t think that I (or anyone) should be able to do that, though I also believe that the process for “restricting” speech in this manner should be arrived at democratically, i.e. society itself should decide what is and isn’t permissible to say. Am I authoritarian on that basis?

No, they are saying that you’re diverting a conversation from who is correct to whether or not your interlocutor was rude to you as a waiver for disregarding the substance of what they said. You can disagree, but presenting yourself as having not been courted appropriately is not going to be taken seriously.

I do actually agree with you that they should speak more gently. Their current behavior is a maladaptive coping mechanism from being inundated with literally thousands and thousands of Redditors who say mostly the same things and won’t flinch before likening them to a Nazi or something.

There is no genocide in Xinjiang nor, as the accusation used to go, in Tibet. Frivolously accusing an enemy of the west that it’s committing genocide, the crime of crimes, when those accusations mainly feed into narratives used to try to balkanize that enemy of the west does present a certain impression. I have no opinion on your character, but I would gently suggest that if you don’t have a strong opinion then it doesn’t make sense to go around making confident assertions, as you clearly did in the case of Xinjiang (because you surely know the argument being suggested by Cowbee and company is not that the PRC is committing genocide and that such a genocide would be good).

Your statement on Taiwan is perfectly consistent with how you characterize yourself, however we might disagree, because it was expressed as supporting a side in an issue where there is some consensus on what the sides represent, though obviously I and other communists will say that if you want an independent Taiwan, you I guess want a global revolution because in the current world there is no possibility for an independent Taiwan, like there is no possibility for an independent Tibet, because it will either be part of China or it will be controlled by the US.

In most lemmy instances, the default feed is a mix of that instance’s and popular threads from other instances. Participating in such a thread that you find spontaneously is therefore not anything resembling “brigading,” even if other people on your instance also see it spontaneously and participate.

It’s a critical element of the financialization of the economy that has lead to it becoming even more irrational and unstable than it was before. Easy example, look up stock buybacks. It’s not just that though, it’s the entire system of obligation to shareholders to deliver quarterly gains with no concern for employees or even the long-term health of the company.

That’s not at all what the quote is and neither is the top level commenter’s interpretation, and I think it not being these is pretty obvious if you read No Exit. The point that he was making (and this is putting it crassly because I know jack shit about his Heidegger-based phenomenology) is the presence of other people forces us to be self-conscious, to regard ourselves as the object of someone else’s perception and judgement. That’s why Sartre goes out of his way to say the room (their jail cell in Hell, effectively) had no reflective surfaces, so that the character’s perception of themselves could only come from the people they are stuck with (this doesn’t entirely make sense, but I am pretty sure it’s what he meant). You can read him talk about some of the premises informing this by checking out his writing on “The Look,” like is quoted below this comic.

So it’s a slightly obtuse point about intersubjectivity that people have turned into a cutesy way of talking about their own misanthropy. It’s probably more emblematic of the meaning of the quote how people in this thread, original commenter especially, are talking about silently judging people for this and that action.

It’s been happening a lot longer than that, that’s a classic misspelling.

I already found (and in fact am coming from, this is an alt account) some more appropriate instances, but I appreciate your trying to be helpful.

Why in the world would you make this thread? Almost every single day for at least the last month (and still often beforehand) there have been threads where the liberals and the leftists aggressively talk in circles on this issue. The odds of you hearing anything new are incredibly low, and you might as well just go back to .ml’s c/news threads for the same material.

I just can’t keep having people yell the same nonsense at me over and over. If you’re really badly in need of leftist takes, I’ll DM you on request, but I don’t really want to talk about it publicly anymore except in more convincingly leftist spaces than .ml has been rendered by its federation.

compromising on social policy (especially immigration . . . )

That compromise has already happened. Harris is currently campaigning on a hardline border policy and touting that she tried to get essentially Trump’s 2020 border policy through the legislature.

If the Dems lose, they will move right. If they win, they will move right. Without a strong leftist opposition (not just voice, but opposition), they will keep moving right term after term after term while touting superficial bullshit to try to please people who have a conscience but very little political education.

There was a thread just yesterday about why the Democrats haven’t done anything progressive in so long, and people were seriously touting Harris being black like that at all matters in the face of her being a cop, or like it’s actual policy and not just the incidental identity of their prospective President. I wrote a whole thing on it before deleting it because I just can’t stand to talk to people like that anymore.

Is it a statement on how pets are animals turned into agency-less commodities, just like meat?

Is it really that hard to imagine that someone who loves you was hoping to see you happy instead of as a moldering corpse?

That is simply incorrect English, words have more referents than gender. Traditionally “it” is reserved for non-human things of all types, but definitely does not ever apply to a human, and calling someone an “it” without it first being requested by them is near-universally recognized as a dehumanizing insult.

No, gay marriage is what the US culture war pivoted on for a long time because it doesn’t involve disruption to normal cishet social currents and doesn’t require anything of the state actually be provided to people, plus it represents a benefit to the gay members of the bourgeoisie just as much as to the common person.

Furthermore, like in Taiwan, gay marriage in the US was not approved by referendum, it was basically a fluke from the Supreme court independent of other efforts. There are still nearly as many states as before where it is a large popular sentiment that if your kid is gay, they are sick, and state legislatures that are, as we speak, preparing to bring gay marriage back to the SC to get its protection removed.

Edit: As an aside, despite your chauvinistic, idealist view of cultures being “there yet” or not, using China as the example, lateral cultural differences also exist, and ignorance of these makes it very difficult to actively evaluate what a cultural attitude is. In China’s case, there is in most places a passive homophobia (which is still homophobia), but they generally don’t have the same homophobic culture war front that we saw in America. They are more like a broad, cultural “don’t ask, don’t tell”, which is in keeping with even Imperial Chinese traditions. There is obviously resistance to the existing movements to do things like legalizing gay marriage, but it’s a losing battle for the conservatives, who are mostly passive on this issue, and several of the practical benefits of gay marriage have already been won by other concessions, allowing gay couples rights concerning medical and financial decisions and so on through their guardianship system.

All this to say “Is gay marriage legal?” should not be treated as a binary for queer people having any recognition.

P.P.S. China also has multiple dedicated clinics for transgender people in various cities like Beijing and Shanghai.

Most folks on the planet are Indian, Chinese, or in an Islamic country of some sort. Now do tell, dear blakeus12. How do all of those cultures treat LGBTQ+ people :|

China has cities bigger than New York that are pretty trans-positive. These entities aren’t monolithic in their values, and in fact I would say they are more diverse in their values for better and for worse, compared to the US. What you are referring to is a cartoon perspective on these ~dozen countries spoon fed to you by western chauvinists.

The whole article is almost certainly demeaning, as you would expect of a celebrity gossip rag.

Contrary to certain self-victimizing sentiments, I think that the problem is that the platform is more and more overtaken by the topic of the election (and Israel in reference thereto) and it just results in interminable arguing in circles that accomplishes nothing but wasting time. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I think less-annoying activity will increase afterwards.

Telegram is awful, but that’s mainly because it is readily bent towards the interests of malicious state actors like we see here. This headline is produced by two things being bad, not just one.