• mrfugu [he/him, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      27·
      2 months ago

      I see that phrase often from anti-communists but I never see “death is a preferable alternative to fascism/capitalism”

      It’s also literally a quote from a hyperbolic anti-communist robot, which is what ppl sound like when they regurgitate it.

      • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
        30·
        2 months ago

        The one time in history Bethesda managed to be too subtle, and it’s the most overt thing you could possibly come up with.

      • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        15·
        2 months ago

        It’s a phrase said by a robot during an ongoing apocalypse where most people on earth died and the world is an irradiated wasteland which I think is supposed to be the irony yeah

  • Piltdowntown [they/them, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    40·
    2 months ago

    As a (sort of) transfem the worst part is this isn’t the minority position. Most trans people have gotten got hook line and sinker on the lie of evil oppressive Communist governments and how Liberalism is what allows them “freedom”. China is literally out here saving the damn world and the majority of trans people you talk to still hate them because of their admittedly regressive views on sexuality, like when they banned femboys in porn. Their myopia refuses to allow them to see beyond their own self to the wider Proletarian context. It’s bourgeois individualism all the way down.

    The struggle for Communism is worth more than any of us individually. Your support can be critical, but it has to still be support.

      • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
        17·
        2 months ago

        中华人民共和国刑法:

        第三百六十三条　以牟利为目的，制作、复制、出版、贩卖、传播淫秽物品的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制，并处罚金；情节严重的，处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金；情节特别严重的，处十年以上有期徒刑或者无期徒刑，并处罚金或者没收财产。

        为他人提供书号，出版淫秽书刊的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制，并处或者单处罚金；明知他人用于出版淫秽书刊而提供书号的，依照前款的规定处罚。

        第三百六十四条　传播淫秽的书刊、影片、音像、图片或者其他淫秽物品，情节严重的，处二年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制。

        组织播放淫秽的电影、录像等音像制品的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制，并处罚金；情节严重的，处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金。

        制作、复制淫秽的电影、录像等音像制品组织播放的，依照第二款的规定从重处罚。

        向不满十八周岁的未成年人传播淫秽物品的，从重处罚。

        第三百六十五条　组织进行淫秽表演的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制，并处罚金；情节严重的，处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金。

        第三百六十六条　单位犯本节第三百六十三条、第三百六十四条、第三百六十五条规定之罪的，对单位判处罚金，并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员，依照各该条的规定处罚。

        第三百六十七条　本法所称淫秽物品，是指具体描绘性行为或者露骨宣扬色情的诲淫性的书刊、影片、录像带、录音带、图片及其他淫秽物品。

        有关人体生理、医学知识的科学著作不是淫秽物品。

        包含有色情内容的有艺术价值的文学、艺术作品不视为淫秽物品。

        (http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/lfzt/rlys/2008-08/21/content_1882895.htm）

        Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China:

        Article 363: Whoever, for the purpose of profit, produces, reproduces, publishes, sells, or disseminates obscene materials shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also be fined; if the circumstances are serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined; if the circumstances are especially serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or have their property confiscated.

        Whoever provides an ISBN to others for the publication of obscene books or periodicals shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also, or shall only, be fined; if they provide an ISBN while knowing that the other party intends to use it for publishing obscene books or periodicals, they shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

        Article 364: Whoever disseminates obscene books, periodicals, films, audio-visual materials, pictures, or other obscene materials, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years, criminal detention, or public surveillance.

        Whoever organizes the screening of obscene films, videos, or other audio-visual products shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also be fined; if the circumstances are serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined.

        Whoever produces or reproduces obscene films, videos, or other audio-visual products for the purpose of organizing their screening shall be given a heavier punishment in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph.

        Whoever disseminates obscene materials to minors under the age of eighteen shall be given a heavier punishment.

        Article 365: Whoever organizes obscene performances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance, and shall also be fined; if the circumstances are serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined.

        Article 366: Where a unit commits any of the crimes stipulated in Articles 363, 364, or 365 of this Section, the unit shall be fined, and the persons directly in charge and other directly responsible personnel shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of each respective article.

        Article 367: For the purposes of this Law, “obscene materials” means books, periodicals, films, video tapes, audio tapes, pictures, and other obscene materials that explicitly depict sexual acts or blatantly promote lustfulness.

        Scientific works on human physiology or medical knowledge are not obscene materials.

        Literary or artistic works of artistic value that contain erotic content shall not be deemed obscene materials.

        • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          Literary or artistic works of artistic value that contain erotic content shall not be deemed obscene materials.

          Now I really wanna know where the line is drawn

          • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
            5·
            2 months ago

            Now I really wanna know where the line is drawn

            Case by case I’d assume as opposed to there being a hard line probably taking factors like intent into account as opposed to simply saying yes or no based purely on whether nudity etc is present.

              • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
                10·
                2 months ago

                If you’ve ever read some of the sloppier cultivation manhua and their ilk you’d find out very quickly that they are not particularly strict so you never know throw in some fight scenes and you’d probably get away with it 🤣

          • Kefla [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Probably the same place as it is in the West regarding obscenity laws and in China regarding anything else in media that they ‘ban’

            The line is drawn wherever the person reviewing it decides to draw the line on any given day. In the US that means a judge, in China I think they have like a whole government office specifically for reviewing this kind of stuff? Either way it’s subjective.

        • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
          5·
          2 months ago

          Look all I’m saying is that Stalin repealed the Tsariat-era ban on alcohol and brought back state-owned distilleries

        • userse31 [it/its, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, honestly I don’t know how to feel about China’s porn ban.

          I think it might of even given Chinese ASMRists a bit of trouble, but the PRC is in constant flux with each other, and the ASMRists were ultimately left alone. (You can find ASMR live streams on Xiaohongshu.)

      • kuiskaaja@lemmy.ml
        17·
        2 months ago

        “I have the right to fully and honestly express my authentic inner self”
        can you tell us what’s wrong with this statement?

        trans ideology
        there’s no such thing, this is a reactionary term

        • Arahnya [fae/faer, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          12·
          2 months ago

          can you tell us what’s wrong with this statement

          well you see, we didnt collectively approve of their gender or sexuality. So how can it be authentic or honest? Sounds like lies!!

          edit - in my experience, as someone with an unconventional identity, I do actually experience a lot of people who feel that they have some say in my identity, so I actually do take an issue with that. Most of these people are terfs or just transphobic in general or have a lot of stuff to unpack etc etc

        • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
          22·
          2 months ago

          Well, and I am in no way saying that they are equivalent in any way, I am just expressing how that statement becomes problematic, what if someone is fully and honestly a pedophile? Should they then be free to express themselves however they want?

          As well, centering things around ideas of ‘authenticity’ have extreme issues. After all, what does it mean to be ‘authentic’ in a day and age where the social expectation is to sell out?

          Ultimately, like many of these things, these kinds of statements are better centered around ideas of consent of the individual. This issue being, of course, that the state is a supposedly, according to the Constitution, consensual entity.

          However this is also the issue around framing things as collectivist v.s. individualist. Dialectical materialists believe that this is a false dichotomy. The individual does not, and cannot, exist without the collective. Indeed, the individual only exists as a relationship with the collective. Without distinct individuals, there is no collective, simply a larger individual, and there has yet to be a person born who is not born into a family, even if it is stripped away, and they are then defined around the lack of social relations.

          Moreover, as has been shown time and again, what is good for the collective is good for the individuals within that collective. When people are materially more secure, they are more free to express themselves without fear of total deprivation, and, truely the only way towards that future for the great mass of humanity is through the collective action of labor. The alternative is simply a bourgeois freedom, where only those who have money and power are the only ones actually free to express themselves, with all others expected to then submit themselves to the will of that individual, to the detriment of both their individuality and that of the collective.

          • kuiskaaja@lemmy.ml
            2·
            2 months ago

            i was thinking of making a lengthy reply to this but i came to the conclusion that it’s not worth my time arguing with someone who starts their argument by comparing trans people to pedophiles

            • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
              11·
              2 months ago

              That isn’t what I am saying and you know it. How do you even begin to do any kind of philosophy if you can’t even engage in a statement in good faith?

              Trans people are in no way, shape, or form related to pedophiles.

              However, the statement “One should have complete freedom to express their full and honest selves.” is not a simply true, moral and universal statement, because of those complications.

              Edit: Honestly, idk why I even bother engaging in the discussions around this topic anymore here anyway. Very few here are actually interested in any real discussion around academic theory of gender and sexuality, or collective v.s. individual frameworks. It’s just shit posting.

          • sodium_nitride [she/her, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            what if someone is fully and honestly a pedophile? Should they then be free to express themselves however they want?

            What is and isn’t allowed by the state isn’t a question of abstract ideals or values but concrete developments. Today in many countries in the world pedophiles are largely allowed to be their authentic selves and conservative societies are teeming with the physical/sexual abuse of women and children.

            In a society where pedophiles ontain supreme political power, they can indeed create conditions where pedophiles can be their authentic selves. Ultimately the universe doesn’t really care about should.

            After all, what does it mean to be ‘authentic’ in a day and age where the social expectation is to sell out?

            To not sell out? Or rather, authenticity is the product of honesty and understanding.

            Dialectical materialists believe that this is a false dichotomy.

            Then why use those concepts? Niether individuals nor collectives actually exist. They are only approximations.

            When people are materially more secure, they are more free to express themselves without fear of total deprivation, and, truely the only way towards that future for the great mass of humanity is through the collective action of labor.

            But how and why does this relate to authenticity? What exactly about economic development requires the suppression of the authenticity of trans people’s gender identity or the authenticity of individuals in general?

            The alternative is simply a bourgeois freedom, where only those who have money and power are the only ones actually free to express themselves

            The crux of the issue is that the power of the bourgeoise class depends on private ownership. Their so called “bourgeois freedom” is only the side effect.

            What you need to demonstrate is that people being allowed to be authentic recreates bourgeois dynamics in a socialist society with the public ownership of the means of production.

            • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              What is and isn’t allowed by the state isn’t a question of abstract ideals or values but concrete developments. Today in many countries in the world pedophiles are largely allowed to be their authentic selves and conservative societies are teeming with the physical/sexual abuse of women and children. In a society where pedophiles contain supreme political power, they can indeed create conditions where pedophiles can be their authentic selves. Ultimately the universe doesn’t really care about should.

              So we agree then, that having authentic pedophiles is a bad idea? That everyone shouldn’t be their ‘true authentic selves’? After all, why wouldn’t pedophiles seek to have power and control in order to indulge themselves?

              I never said the universe should care about it. That isn’t even close to the argument I am making here. I am talking about ‘universal ethical statements’. Statements that are always ethical no matter their context.

              To not sell out? Or rather, authenticity is the product of honesty and understanding.

              Ok, what if I honestly want you to understand that I want to sell out? Or what if I think that I would be selling out if I believed your propaganda about global warming? I was born to roll coal. How is that not authentic? What if you are the one born with the privilege of capital, does that mean you never have to sell out, which means that you are inherently more authentic than the working class? It’s a shit and elitist concept from continental philosophy, and we should have never adopted it on the left to begin with, but here we are.

              Then why use those concepts? Niether individuals nor collectives actually exist. They are only approximations.

              That’s my point. Why are you phrasing it like you disagree with me? Don’t use those concepts. They are bad concepts, false dichotomies.

              But how and why does this relate to authenticity? What exactly about economic development requires the suppression of the authenticity of trans people’s gender identity or the authenticity of individuals in general?

              Absolutely nothing. That is my point. However, at the same time, what does the elevation of authenticity have to do with economic development, what about economic development requires the elevation of authentic individuals?Why should we center a society around that as bedrock idea, when it is clear that we only mean some authentic individuals? It’s not a universal ethic then, not foundational philosophy. Do we not want people to ‘sell out’ to our system? What does it even mean to ‘sell out’ when socialism is the dominant system?

              The crux of the issue is that the power of the bourgeoise class depends on private ownership. Their so called “bourgeois freedom” is only the side effect. What you need to demonstrate is that people being allowed to be authentic recreates bourgeois dynamics in a socialist society with the public ownership of the means of production.

              No, I don’t. That wasn’t what this conversation was about. That is what you have pivoted this conversation towards, because, in selecting the battleground, you have won the argument. Yes, in a socialist system of public ownership, people will likely have more of an ability to be their authentic selves, and I doubt that doing so will recreate bourgeois relations. Literally what I was arguing in my other post.

              However, that isn’t what we were talking about. Unless I missed something, we were talking about ANY society that centers ‘the ability for authentic individuals to express themselves’ as it’s ethical touchstone, which we both have shown to simply not be true.

              Edit: Also, it is extremely difficult to talk about hypothetical societies in any meaningful way.

              • sodium_nitride [she/her, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                What you are talking about is using authenticity as the only basis and consideration of a legal system with no regards to conflict management or guardrails against interpersonal abuse.

                Literally no one argued for this. You’re fighting ghosts.

                • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  No. I was not talking about a legal system. I was talking about viewing something as a universally ethical statement. Different things.

                  How is it you can misrepresent my points so much and claim that I am fighting ghosts?

                  Edit: Fuck it, let’s entertain the hypothetical about it under a theoretical socialist legal system (whatever that means). If the method of capital ownership is what determines the ethical nature of the statement, then the method of capital ownership is what should be placed as the priority, dominant to the supposed ‘authenticity of the individual’. And under such an ethical arrangement, which as we know from history has the lives of billions at stake, then it is simply that the burden of proof is not on the individual to prove that the ‘authenticity of the individual’ is a risk to recreating bourgeois relations, but, on the other hand, one must instead prove the benefits of elevating the ‘authenticity of the individual’ in strengthening socialist relations, simply because the likelihood of unknown unknowns presents too great a risk for any kind of substantial legal interaction.

                  And given how fuzzy the concept of the ‘authenticity of the individual’ is, I would not touch it legally with a ten-foot pole.

        • orlando [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          11·
          2 months ago

          trans ideology

          that’s a truncation, the actual words are:

          trans person who adopts this ideology

          the gender is not ideological, the individualist framing of gender is.

    • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      Or doing nothing while a couple pay the legal fees all the way to the supreme court, then pretending like it was somehow intentional when the ruling turns out to be massively popular.