Provided you say that russia / china are in fact not communist

The capitalist Russian Federation was formed in the 90s (leading to the economic disaster and the desperation that allowed Putin to rise to power). Russia is literally not, in any way, a socialist state for 35 years now.

The former Soviet Union, similarly to China today, was ruled by a communist party. This means the government is trying to move towards socialism, but it does not imply they’ve established a socialist mode of production - the goal of the socialist movement. This is a big source of ambiguity and confusion when people try to argue if countries “are/aren’t socialist”, that’s too vague, and even then you can’t just tell by the current situation - a government or society can follow a school or thought or ideology (socialist theory) before it achieves its goals (a socialist mode of production). “Communist” can refer to either the social movement (SU and PRC were obviously that) or the politico-economic reality (obviously neither has achieved that, let alone a socialist MoP),

Economies like China’s are a big source of debates among socialist theorists about whether it’s state capitalist, communist, or some mixed hybrid economy. Their economy has departed from capitalism-as-we-know-it, but still have the core features (capital, private property). But, regardless of their economy, they’re clearly a party trying to achieve communism, and therefore the PRC is a communist state that hasn’t achieved a communist mode of production.

TL;DR: Until we ask more specific questions, someone can say these countries are communist, someone else can say they’re not, and both are correct answers.

There are pre-industrial societies (including some like Zapatista territory in Chiapas, Mexico with 300,000 people) which some would call socialist or even communist, but I don’t think they’re worth bringing up when discussing whole modern countries - their situations aren’t as applicable to our conditions.

That author was so dubious that even two other co-authors of the book later denounced it.

We also know that the Black Book of Communism has long been debunked

According to Wikipedia, even a few of its own co-authors have denounced it, saying the main author was obsessed with inflating the numbers.

Anyone who saw the Lemmyvision competition, aussie.zone used a ranked choice voting method which was fun to see. (Even if their winning song won outright, it was interesting to see the host explain the insight ranking gave)

I liked this interactive explanation they linked: https://ncase.me/ballot

I disagree. I would personally find one point two zero point one to be more natural and easier to understand.

I disagree with that, because we’re dealing with a number and not a fraction. Linux kernel 4.20 is not equal to Linux kernel 4.2, we’re actually dealing with the integer 20 here. (yes, alphabetical sorting on a download server has lead me to download an outdated kernel version once)

I don’t think that’s any more precise, just more verbose (read: inefficient).

I’d say the second one is more correct

In this case, it’s not about what sounds good or personal opinion, there is a standard name for that number for a reason. If I go around calling 100 “one oh oh” or “tenty ten”, it’s clear what number I mean but I can’t honestly call it more correct, because there’s a standard English name for it.

To demonstrate a part of why it’s clearer that way, put these numbers in ascending numerical order: (e.g. 1, 2, 3, … )

• one point three
• one point twenty-nine
• one point thirty
• one point thirty-one
• one point three-thousand-and-fifty-two

Hopefully this clarifies that we’re not actually dealing with a “thirty-two” when we’re talking about 1.32 (edit: that said, when we’re talking about version numbers, e.g. Linux kernel 4.20, which is greater than Linux kernel 4.9, then we’d say “four point twenty”)

Thanks, I didn’t realize that was the context.

where, by law, no politician has the power to arbitrarily sentence people to death.

What does that have to do with anything? Politics isn’t just elected politicians, it’s not some entity distinct from society and the economy. And you don’t have to directly force someone’s death to cause it and be responsible for it.

Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of status or resources ^[wikipedia]

In my country, the construction union forces their employers to follow safety procedures on site which the government does not legally enforce. Deaths of these construction workers due to workplace accidents has dropped because of workers using their political power as a trade union, while the government (due to pressure from construction employers) aims to dilute this power. In your country, unions have gradually lost a lot of their historic power and the rate of fatal workplace accidents is around double or more than most European countries, and close to that of Russia and Thailand. Workplace health and safety policy is, literally, life and death politics for many people.

In both our countries, there is a housing crisis which threatens more and more people and families with homelessness. This has huge impacts on their ability to work and even survive. Government policy impacts affordability of property, how much residential property is being built, the affordability of basic needs (like food and utilities), how much employers must pay for jobs, the rights of landlords and tenants (e.g. here there is an upper limit to how much a landlord can increase prices per month), social support to homeless people or those seeking work, and the legal concerns of homelessness (e.g. anti-camping laws, jail time for seeking shelter in vehicles, food disposal policy that promotes starvation). More and more people are dying because of homelessness and its effects. Housing policy is, literally, life and death politics for many people.

Political policy in the US has infamously enabled widespread, normalized police brutality. This especially (but not exclusively!) affects minorities such as black peoples, queer people and autistic people, regularly and consistently leading to deaths from shooting, unjustified physical assault and sadistic negligence while imprisoned. Law enforcement policy is, literally, life and death politics for many people.

The 9/11 attacks killed thousands of innocent civilians. That was politics, al-Qaeda is a political organization who were responding to the direct results of US foreign policy. Hundreds of thousands more were killed overseas in the US “War on Terror”, but even for its own domestic citizens, international geopolitics is, literally, life and death politics for many people.

Those are just a few example across a range of well-known political topics, not even getting into more indirect aspects like deciding where government funding goes to (e.g. heart disease research - heart disease being the single biggest cause of death), and not even diving into non-government political organizing. Politics includes the more extreme anti-abortion activists working to make even life-saving abortions illegal. Politics includes insane mass shooters targeting minority groups. Politics includes the assassination of Brian Thompson.

Eh, one can’t really make a decent analysis using vague abstract ideals like ‘liberty’ and ‘security’.

In some ways, security is liberating! For example, some religions have anonymous (private) confessionals and electoralism has anonymous private ballot booths to encourage freedom in voting. I don’t know if I’d be as honest online if I knew people with too much time and money could track my posts back to my real identity and harass me. And without security, these privacies would be merely illusions (see: deanonymization)

And obviously, on the other hand, state security understandably sees certain personal liberties (like downloading bomb-making guides and then buying fertilizer) as a risk beyond the liberty they’re willing to permit. Corporate security might see user anonymity techniques as a legitimate fraud/bot risk. I’ve picked diverse and good-faith examples to demonstrate, there’s plenty of midground and abusive examples of both, don’t worry, I know. (I left reddit many years ago partly for privacy reasons, no need to preach to the choir).

I guess my point is, security and liberties don’t necessarily contradict. But if you have governments and corporations run by the owning class, they have a material interest in suppressing your liberties for their own security. To make that appealing and tolerable, they have an incentive to rebrand this as being about your security. I’ve been in protests that obviously wouldn’t harm a fly and the police presence is consistently absurd. It’s clearly not actually about any of our security, or even the security of property owners, but rather the security of the bourgeois owning class and their way of life.

I think Lemmy takes politics WAY too seriously and way too personally.

But, you must understand, to many people politics is very personal, whether they like it or not.

You are very lucky to be able to do your own thing, to have the privilege of politics being fun and not very serious. But to millions of people, this is, literally, a life and death matter.

Confound your OP magic! I was going to buy some guns!

Well, I could invest it and pocket the returns… not sure how far 1 mil will get these days.

Or, I could just https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HrmD_vIMIk

Looking back, I didn’t realize what I said could have been misinterpreted, if one isolated it from the next paragraphs. Sorry for the snappy response.

[conservatives] are un-desired…ala undesirable.

No, their politics are unwanted. That’s a huge difference, it’s absurd to treat them as equal.

To clarify, and as discussed in that following paragraphs, I’m saying it’s absurd to treat someone’s politics being unwanted as equal to someone themselves being considered unwanted.

What I found so controversial was that your post misframed my position as if I thought people should be treated differently simply because their politics are different. That’s not true. My politics are different to a M-L’s, and to an anarchist, and I get along alright with them. No, my problem isn’t that people have different ideas, my problem is that bigots and the like (many call themselves ‘conservatives’) aim to have innocent people oppressed and killed through their political beliefs and actions. Politics isn’t some civil abstract philosophical discussion. Politics isn’t distinct from material reality. It’s not harmless and innocent to just have a political position. When a neo-Nazi org tries to spread their propaganda in public (yes, there are people in my city who try this. and yes, I mean “quotes the NSDAP and means it” neo-Nazi), they aren’t simply just expressing an idea, this isn’t some isolated discussion in a vacuum, they’re attempting to build a political movement that promises to get my friends, co-workers, and a whole bunch of my community killed just for how they were born. And we have a duty to protect the people we care about from being killed by fascists.

So when we “ban” that Nazi from feeling safe to express those politics in public, it’s not because we’re ‘triggered’ that they dared to have different politics, we’re responding appropriately to a credible, albeit not imminent, threat. Same with the non-nazi bigotry regularly seen among self-proclaimed “conservatives”, it’s people trying to make others excluded from society based on how they were born. That’s a threat to our safety.

So, again, like I said before, it’s absurd to equivocate people being banned for posting bigotry and reactionary ideologies, to people being considered “an undesirable”, a subhuman.

Now image a republican saying that about democrats. Imagine your outrage. LMAO

I couldn’t care less - I hope Biden and Kamala get shot alongside Trump and Vance. ¯_ (ツ)_/¯

See, […] not every republican is a Nazi.

Obviously. The US electoral system is undemocratic garbage and which party people identify with isn’t an indication of their political worldview - the Democrats are repulsive and harmful to the social justice movements they pretend to campaign for, I can’t blame anyone for opposing them. There is no good or even adequate option until you get into the minor parties, who most probably don’t know much about.

But, the party leadership has plenty of people who, for all intents and purposes, mirror the policies and tactics of the NSDAP circa 1933. They even managed to get the ultranationalism started (see Canada, Greenland). Nazi is an appropriate label for them, including Trump and Musk, to be clear.

If one wants to say all the supporters and footsoldiers aren’t Nazis because they’re too ignorant to understand what they’re supporting or think it’s the lesser evil, I say it’s pointless semantics. The minority of Germans who voted for the NSDAP pre-takeover are known to history as Nazis. The Wehrmacht who “fought for their country” instead of fighting their government are known to history as “Nazi soldiers”. Complicity is not innocent, people were hanged for “just following orders”. So, if you’re not a Nazi (and I don’t think you are one) you’re going to have to make your actions speak.

So because someones politics are different than yours

No.

Stopped reading there. If you’re just going to invent strawman arguments no-one said, instead of trying to read and reply to what I wrote, why even talk with you?

They are un-desired…ala undesirable.

No, their politics are unwanted. That’s a huge difference, it’s absurd to treat them as equal.

When I used the term ‘undesirables’, I didn’t mean literally ‘not desired’. I meant it in the context that reactionaries like NSDAP (Nazi Germany) and their modern fans use it - it referred to peoples like Slavs, Romani, Jews, black peoples, people with disabilities, homosexuals and ideological opponents, and more^[1]. People, just because of their lineage, were considered subhuman (Untermensch) and sent to be deported or exterminated. And it’s absolutely applicable to the section of modern US conservatives (including their national leaders) who are currently embracing similar oppression of selected races and conditions. That’s the allusion I was making with the borrowed term ‘undersirables’, not just a person who is being offensive, starting fights and told to leave.

Identifying politically is a choice. One can refine their political positions, or even just be diplomatic and respectful, at any time, by choice. It’s very easy.

Being identified as a race, sex, or other similar category, is not a choice. So if you feel excluded because you named your account after two racist cunts and openly identify as ‘conservative’ in an anti-racist space, that’s something you can easily choose not to do if you actually want to be included. Don’t expect us to take you seriously when you compare that to the Republic party’s form of exclusion, oppressing people for how they were born, not how they choose to act in a society.

Same, for quick-and-easy hobby work, it’s a great tool. Sometimes I will be surprised by looking up a video effect and seeing it can be done in kdenlive.

A few years back there was a bug with my set-up where it would crash when moving clips a certain way, but once that was solved, kdenlive has been smooth sailing for me.

Thanks for sharing the channel, I checked one of those tutorials (I can’t watch more rn) and it’s very well made, putting the end result right at the start, bringing up special considerations like watching for lighting changes or cloud movements in background footage.

By the way, what kind of “TikTok effects” are you talking about? Dynamic transitions and shaky-cam effects, or other things too?

Wouldn’t you be mad if suddenly conservatives came on and said that same thing about left-leaning people?!

It’s less about whether I’d feel mad, and more about how that materially affects our community. Left-leaning people are trying to make communities which allow all peoples (but not all ideas, like exterminating races and objectifying sexes), while plenty of conservatives (I don’t think the word ‘conservative’ truly applies, but many identify as conservative) are trying to exclude peoples they consider undesirables. If you wanted, you can walk into an anarcho-communist or M-L organization and, as long as you don’t offend them with any provoking symbols or offensive ideas, be welcomed. Not everyone can do the same in a reactionary community. So I don’t think it’s fair to equivocate anti-rightism with anti-leftism. (and, as a side note, if we want to talk about the rare ultra-liberalist (‘Libertarian’) free-speech everyone-welcome scenario, Lemmy already went through that with Wolfballs a few years back - their admin shut it down when they eventually realized they’d created a Nazi bar and that the WNs weren’t just being dumb and offensive as a joke.)

Furthermore, in the context of Lemmy overall, it was created by communists who were leaving reddit to avoid what you described:

Left-leaning by what definition?

I’m not saying that as a challenge, I’m legitimately curious what interpretation of ‘left’ tolerates those ideas. Even a bigot with economically social ideas (like a Strassertite) is typically considered ‘right-wing’.