699
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 124 points 6 months ago

Why is Winnie the Pooh dressed like a sexual predator?

[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 30 points 6 months ago

The two are hardly mutually exclusive....oh, bother....

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 16 points 6 months ago

I hear there's a major sex-pest issue in the pro-china industry.

[-] BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world 108 points 6 months ago

If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren't doing socialism right.

[-] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 23 points 6 months ago

If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren't doing domestic governance right.

FTFY

[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 months ago

I think both premises are well-justified by the presented evidence. That is to say, doing either effectively makes suicide nets vanishingly unlikely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 85 points 6 months ago

Yup China has the fastest growing billionaire and millionaire class. It's no more socialist than America but we need a boogy man, as long as that antagonist isn't capitalism the wheels towards the cliff will keep turning.

[-] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 31 points 6 months ago

Do you think it’s socialism that makes the US establishment wary of China?

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago

Indeed. That’s why I asked the question.

Say what you will about how fucking stupid American foreign policy is and has been, but it’s at least somewhat tempered its approach to socialist governments around the world.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

Even in the Cold War, it was horrifically uneven. We were cozy with Yugoslavia and intermittently cooperative with the Arab socialist states (and Israel, which was dominated by the at-the-time-actually-left Labour coalitions), but couped the democratic governments of Mossadegh in Iran (who wasn't even a socialist) and Allende in Chile for seeming a little too 'red'.

Diving into Cold War history, you realize how much of the lines sold about realpolitik, liberal internationalism, and material conditions are all less important than their defenders present them as.

No one has a plan. There's no rationality or structure to it. Personal quirks of low-ranking bureaucrats and cultural perceptions of political decorum are often as important as national-scale economic concerns.

It's why democratic participation and awareness of foreign affairs is so goddamn important. Because otherwise, Mr. Empty Suit in a sinecure position during an unforeseen crisis who had a fucking cold the day a meeting was supposed to happen determines the fate of hundreds of thousands.

Shit's almost never inevitable.

[-] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

Totally. It’s absolutely terrifying (and occasionally, very reassuring) how much a single person can impact the entire planet.

To your point about voting and democratizing foreign policy: I tend to agree with you, but I also have some reservations. I think you can observe how easily things become overtly politicized and based, based on short-term political gains. Bureaucracy and individual expertise/institutional knowledge and inertia can safeguard against some shockwaves that occur based on shorter term democratic changes. I do think that there’s plenty of space for a technocratic approach to administration, where decisions are based on longer term thinking than a lot of representative democracies reward in the political sphere.

Just to be clear: I’m defending expertise within a democratic government’s institutions, not for opaque policies or a system without oversight. I’m just saying that just as I like to have scientists leading a county’s national science organizations, I like having foreign policy experts leading a county’s foreign policy organizations.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Oh, certainly. But an active and involved population can help steer the ship back on course by democratic means when any given foreign policy bureaucrat fucks up.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Yeah, it's odd honestly, only after effectively defeating marxism-leninism globally has the U.S. started to accept socialism.

Though it probably could've been predicted, the Socialist and, to a varying degree, the Communist Parties (France and Italy), had a large amount of influence in the European democracies of the Cold War, and the U.S tolerated it, mostly because those parties upheld democracy. It makes sense that this attitude towards foreign policy would spread to how the U.S. treats any nation globally, not just Europe.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 16 points 6 months ago

It's really weird how narratives alone can change the direction of nations,

We used to say we are the arsenal of democracy to justify all the right wing coups we sponsored against socialist leaders, even if they were democratically elected, and now a major US party's establishment has zero qualms helping socialists if the socialists are the ones who are going to the defense of the global democratic society, because "we're the defenders of democracy."

The joking innuendo became a legitimate foreign policy planck!

I think this is part of an overall tone shift in the US' culture, a rise of Radical Sincerity. Everyone is so burnt out of wink and nod cynicism after decades of it being the norm in one iteration or another, that the punkish backlash to the status quo cynicism and fake smiles is to play what was once made fun of as childish delusion completely straight.

Sincere fantasy stories, abandonment of lampshading tropes, exhaustion with wink and nod fourth wall breaks, shift to a sincere insistence on following through on the values we were told to aspire to, through religious upbringing or through the narrative of national history we were taught.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

No, but it's a convenient drum to beat for the right-wing.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Absolutely not. If you look hard at the colonialist shitfuckery the US perpetrated during the (so-called) "Cold War", "socialism" was only the enemy as far as the propaganda and pretexts were concerned - in reality, the insurgencies the US tried to repress and the governments the US undermined were all nationalist in nature.

The US isn't threatened by socialism because the US defeated any internal socialist threat with Roosevelt's New Deal - whether they will do that again is anyone's guess.

[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 80 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Not making a point here, I just like numbers:

China has a population of ~1.4 billion

China has 698 billionares

China has the one billionare for every 2,005,730 people.

United States has a population of ~340 million

United States has 724 billionaires

US has one billionaire for every 469,613 people.

Edit: I like numbers. I don’t like Reddit/Lemmy formatting.

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 44 points 6 months ago

I think it'd be better when adjusted for GDP.

China gdp: $17.96 trillion

China has 1 billionare / $25.73 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $18.22 GDP / capita

US gpd: $27.94 trillion

US has 1 billionare / $38.59 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $114.88 GDP / capita

[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Ohhhh numbers. Very yummy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago

you are being generous if you think your average reactionary will understand such a heavy concept of per capita

[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago

I’m not trying to make anyone understand anything, I just like numbers.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago
[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Numbers care not for your approval.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago

but i have mild approval for them anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's a good thing that all that time and resources and blood was spent making the CCP the only instrument of significant political power in China so they could [check notes] as a much-poorer country, have about the same number of billionaires as the poster country for capitalism!

Power to the people('s billionaires)!

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

did i say anything about the ccp?

in any case the country has seen the unprecedented growth in the economy and quality of life since its inception. not perfect, not too shabby.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

did i say anything about the ccp?

The PRC, which is run exclusively by the CCP, is kind of the topic of discussion here. Is that too complex for you to grasp?

in any case the country has seen the unprecedented growth in the econony and quality of life since its inception.

It's hilarious that tankies throw fits over capitalist countries using the same measure to judge their successes, but immediately resort to it when their favorite fascist state is questioned.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

i dont recall throwing any fits about measures of success. the person you are thinking of is not me.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] niktemadur@lemmy.world 61 points 6 months ago

Post this at another instance that I shall not invoke by name, watch yourself get deleted and maybe even banned.

[-] 33550336@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

No way, tankies would never do this /s

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago

Can you provide more context? Im very confused after skimming the first few paragraphs

[-] SlothMama@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago

It's a stupid comment practice where they claim ownership of their comment and place what they think is a binding and effective license against AI using that comment.

It literally does nothing. This is the modern equivalent of making a post on Facebook to assert that you have rights and control of your comments there.

Beyond the tools for editing and deletion you have no such rights in the Fediverse and it's a good way to demonstrate you don't understand how anything works.

Nothing stops anyone or any entity from indexing, ingesting, or scraping federated content.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Liz@midwest.social 34 points 6 months ago

They put that link in all their comments. It's got nothing to do with what they say.

[-] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago

Oh lol, thanks for clearing that up

[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 months ago

It's simple: China is an ultra-capitalist nightmare county and anyone who disagrees is either a liar or a fool.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 50 points 6 months ago

All the .ml users showing up to explain that actually real socialism is supposed to produce billionaires, because of reasons.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 20 points 6 months ago

I mean you could argue an end goal is every person having the effective wealth of a billionaire in terms of being able to have what they need right when they need it and being able to enrich their lives without worry for losing money that might be needed for an emergency later, but that specific stretch point is so far into a post scarcity future it is only a slight exaggeration to say it's literally the "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" meme but as an actual civilization.

[-] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

the “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism” meme but as an actual civilization.

We have that. It's called The United Federation of Planets.

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 32 points 6 months ago

Truth is, the number was once well over 698.

Ask Jack ma what happened.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 months ago

Since China's economic reforms in the 1980's, 700 million Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty, accounting for three quarters of worldwide poverty reduction during that time.

Do people here think China should've continued Mao's economic policies? Or do you think the correct path is somewhere in between Mao and Deng? Or are y'all just looking to criticize China regardless of what they do or what the results are, to performatively demonstrate your loyalty to the US government?

You don't have to answer that. I've asked it many times and I know none of y'all have an answer to it, beyond calling me a bot or foreign agent, to avoid the question and to performatively demonstrate your loyalty to the US government. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, but I also know it won't happen.

[-] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Lemmy.ml user doesn't understand that there are more than two options for China, and their people can do better than either bad or very bad

A tale as old as time

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 months ago

How about keep the system, but stop trying to pretend it's not primarily capitalism

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Germandaniel@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Interesting, how do you feel about uyghurs? Also, are you aware that some of these people "lifted out of poverty" were folks in rural areas who were totally fine where they were at. I'm not a big fan of the US government either or other bodies that seriously impinge human rights. I think a correct path forward for China economically is somewhere close to where they're at now but with more civil liberties.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Also, are you aware that some of these people “lifted out of poverty” were folks in rural areas who were totally fine where they were at.

That's... certainly a take, alright. I suppose it's possible that hundreds of millions of rural Chinese were voluntarily choosing to live in extreme poverty out of some sort of commitment to asceticism. I'll admit that this was not a possibility I had considered before.

I think a correct path forward for China economically is somewhere close to where they’re at now but with more civil liberties.

So then the billionaires aren't the problem you have with China then, if I'm understanding you.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 11 points 6 months ago

Well ackshuyally (\s)

[-] NutWrench@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Socialism: A system of government where the country's wealth is concentrated into a small, ruling class of billionaires, who use the media they own to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money.

Oh wait. that's capitalism. I don't know how I got those two systems confused.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
699 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5447 readers
2802 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS