You must log in or register to comment.
Why is Winnie the Pooh dressed like a sexual predator?
I hear there’s a major sex-pest issue in the pro-china industry.
sex-pest
I keep seeing this term, can you translate it to American? Is it referring to anyone obsessed with sex, or specifically people who commit sexual assault?
I’ve heard it used, as an American myself. Sex-pest is someone who is bothersome towards others, typically in a harassing way with some thin layer of plausible deniability, in the expectation or hope of getting reluctant sex out of someone else.
Thanks.
Pretty sure it’s just a British way of saying “sexual predator.” I’ve heard it used to describe pretty extreme predator/assaulter behavior.
If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren’t doing socialism right.
If factories in your country have suicide nets, maybe you aren’t doing domestic governance right.
FTFY
I think both premises are well-justified by the presented evidence. That is to say, doing either effectively makes suicide nets vanishingly unlikely.
One could even go as far as to argue that doing either effectively implies also doing the other effectively at the same time
Removed by mod
For what it’s worth, I picked up on the sarcasm. 🤣
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.
Do you think it’s socialism that makes the US establishment wary of China?
Honestly, not really anymore.
Biden has saved socialists from Far-Right Coups
It really seems that the U.S. is growing more accepting of international socialism, as long as it’s democratic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, but it’s a convenient drum to beat for the right-wing.
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.
It’s an incorrectly framed question, I think. China doesn’t have real, by definition, socialism. If they did then maybe the “US establishment” would come out against it. They’re definitely against the Chinese brand of authoritarian socialism, though, but in that example the term socialism and China mean the same thing so you can’t be wary of the thing because it’s the thing, thats circular logic.
I don’t follow what you’re saying here, I’m sorry.
It’s an authoritarian country where labour unions are illegal and the ruling party is dominated by wealthy billionaires. They spew out xenophobic propaganda that claims that foreigners want to repeat the humiliations of the past (over a century ago) and therefore they need strongmen to protect the people.
We probably should just call them fascists, but since they say they’re socialists we believe them. Fascists would never claim to be socialists, they’re known to be super honest about that kind of thing.
Labor unions are not illegal. They send a packet of meats to my girlfriend every year. The problem is that this is that only thing they are allowed to do
Labour unions are illegal? I saw from non-chinese ppl that live there they have strikes all time. Can you provide a sauce?
Global politics in 2024 is pretty much western fascism vs eastern fascism
South, middle, north, periphery, western & eastern citizens suffer
There is actually real generally agreed upon properties of fascism. It’s not just “politicians I’m angry at because the internet told me to be”.
It’s important to understand these things otherwise you’re just falling for the “both sides” rhetoric just as the actual fascists want you to.
Yes, and the properties apply. Umberto Eco’s list is a wonderful source
By no means are the people suffering one of “both sides”
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.
This isn’t reddit. -3.14
Force of habit
It’s worth noting, though, that this doesn’t take into account the levels of inequality beyond comparing numbers of billionaires/non-billionaires.
The Gini coefficient is a popular method of measuring economic inequality, on a scale from 0 (total equality) to 1 (one person owns the entire nation’s wealth).
As of 2019, the US and China had Gini coefficients of 0.481 and 0.465 respectively, making them extremely similar in overall wealth inequality, which is extremely high for both nations.
Ooohhh… new types of numbers…
Tonight, we feast…
Post this at another instance that I shall not invoke by name, watch yourself get deleted and maybe even banned.
No way, tankies would never do this /s
hexagonal ursine?
Something bear right?
All the .ml users showing up to explain that actually real socialism is supposed to produce billionaires, because of reasons.
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.
the “Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism” meme but as an actual civilization.
We have that. It’s called The United Federation of Planets.
China is not socialist no matter what they say.
Truth is, the number was once well over 698.
Ask Jack ma what happened.
Hate to spoil the fun but as of this year Ma is still heading Alibaba and is worth over $30bn USD.
Well ackshuyally (\s)
/s
Jesus who cares
Jesus does.
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.
deleted by creator
Lemmy world and being politically illiterate. Name a better duo.
Lemmy world and being politically illiterate. Name a better duo.
True political literacy is understanding that the PEOPLE’S billionaires are what the REAL path to socialism looks like!
