Rule 2

Rule 2

Rule 2

Rule 2

Rule 2, you're breaking it. And, that hurt my feelings

damn you're posting this all over the thread, why not use the report function? Or are you trying to get your parent's attention?

If you mandate and enforce it, you'll form/expose the hierarchy, right?

Well, depends on who "you" is and how you "enforce" it. Do you, the person given the systemic authority to do so, throw people in jail/gulags/whatever if they refuse to mask? Then yeah, that's hierarchical. Do you, a community member, organize with other community members to exclude the non-masker from social events and community spaces until they decide to mask? OR do you, a doctor designated via the community as an expert and thus given narrow, organic, retractable social authority to do so, say "you need to wear a mask"? Then no.

Shouldn't have Broke rule 2

".world shitlibs really do think they should be able to behave as badly as possible without ever being subject to any rules" ~ a rule breaker

organize with other community members to exclude the non-masker from social events and community spaces

How do you plan to enforce this exclusion? Putting up a sign, physical removal (violence), non physical punitive measures?

banger

it's not for everybody but at least the comments I saw you comment "rule 2" under, they were proportional to the snark they were responding to rather than a big escalation out of nowhere

“In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests propagated anti communism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War the anti communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If Soviets refused to negotiate a point they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off guard. By opposing arms limitations they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armaments treaties it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions) this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system. If they didn’t go on strike it was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated failure of the economic system; and improvement in consumer goods only meant that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communist in the US played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African Americans, women, and others this was only a their guileful way of gathering support among disenfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is an unfalsefiable orthodoxy so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the political spectrum.”

If the communists have many prisoners, it's for no reason other than being evil. But when in fact the communists don't have that many prisoners, it's because they're so evil they just killed everybody. How they got anything done despite supposedly killing everyone was never explained.

where do you get your info on cuba lmao

you're also wrong on china but i get that one at least because there's endless anti-china slop, but with cuba you have to be watching wildly reactionary shit to believe it's like the us

Yes, it's the people with a reading group who are ignorant and not the people so historically vapid that they recently let a bunch of Epstein associates convince them to support a second Holocaust.

AFTER, mind you, getting tricked by those same pedophiles a few years earlier into supporting actual nazis in Europe, with swastikas and tiki torch marches and everything. We warned you guys then that you were being slow-boiled into fascists, but predictably you were too vain and high on nationalist bloodlust to listen. Same as it ever was.

That's crazy man

Anyway

It is you who is in fact confused about what hierarchies are because they have absolutely nothing to do with coercion, and have everything to do with division of labour and abstraction. You seem to have a personal definition of what a hierarchy is. Hierarchies do not require any violence whatsoever, and it's a concept that applies to large range of domains outside politics such as writing computer programs. Next, you'll be telling me that class hierarchies require threat of violence.

I love seeing libs seething in the morning.

Our good law abiding society, their authoritarian regime

I have much more respect for this answer, which is ideologically consistent, than what I was expecting, which was for some liberal to go "Scandinavia"

Yes, Cuba and China are very obviously serving the working class. Maybe spend a bit of time educating yourself instead of smoking whatever it is you smoke.

The US government told u/Talcosis to reject the evidence from his eyes and ears. It was their final most essential command.

The working class in the usa empire mostly lives in the colonies. Labor aristocrats always "conveniently forget" about their overseas plundering.

Do you, a community member, organize with other community members to exclude the non-masker from social events and community spaces until they decide to mask?

Is that not hierarchical too?
And what do you do if they do not allow themselves to be excluded from community spaces?

Are you not bringing in hierarchy when you give yourself and your group the power to choose whether the person or group who disagrees should be excluded from community spaces?

And what do you do when they do not agree? Do you jail them? Do you harm them or threaten violence?

Are you not creating/exposing the hierarchy by choosing to exclude those parts of your community from community spaces for disagreeing with you?

a doctor designated via the community as an expert and thus given narrow, organic, retractable social authority to do so, say "you need to wear a mask"?

So, again a power hierarchy in the matter of medicine, where you a lay person has lesser power?

And the people opposing the masking, will not be agreeing with that doctor, right? So not designated by the all of the community as a expert in that specific topic then.
If the person acknowledged the expertise, then the issue would not persist, right?

Do you threaten or propagandise someone that they would not oppose that position and obey it then? Power hierarchy again, right?

The communist party consisted of workers. Working class is not a level of income, but a relation to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Further, the USSR saw incredibly high rates of democratic participation, both having some of the highest voting percentages and the actual highest rates of measures to vote on.

Wealth inequality in the USSR existed, but was nowhere even fathomably close to wealth inequality in modern Russia, let alone the US Empire.

Your defense of them is what, that they were simply following orders?

So are we assuming the non-masker is trying to be somewhere they've been told they're not welcome like, as a statement of rebellion? Do they not understand that they're not welcome or what they need to change to be welcome? Are they trying to be provocative, or are they trying to gain access to the community for some specific purpose?

"Enforcing this exclusion" is really broad. It has the underlying assumption that the situation is already violent, that there is a thing to enforce against someone who is "disobeying" the thing. Which I'd argue comes from the fact that we've really only lived in police states in modern history. Again, humans are social creatures--we want community and we want to feel included. And we don't consciously do things to each other for no reason. I urge you to think deeply about where the need for "enforcement" comes from, and what we mean by it.

Second highest prison population flexes on the highest. AKA two shit countries that could give a rip about human rights.

I remember the period when that number reached 3,000 and it was literally 9/11 every day. It might seem like a silly comparison, but seeing how one was immediately turned into a grotesque, maudlin display of narcissistic injury by our government to justify attocities while the other, way worse one was just inflicted on us by those same people as a matter of course. Really made me understand the reality, how some lives are valued while billions are written off. All those Palestinians are just an abstract statistic, but we must stop the world in its tracks to mourn Bryan Thompson and Charlie Kirk. It's kind of like what this person is doing actually. "Sure my idea of normalcy floats atop an ocean of blood that i refuse to acknowledge, but the people who stepped up to change that fact committed the unforgivable crime of making the butchers bleed!"

I'm confused by your last sentence. Can you say more?

Really not engaging with what I said at all.

If someone is refusing to wear a mask and you and your neighbourhood watch or vigilantes or whatever you want to call yourselves come together and decide this person is not allowed to make use of community spaces anymore but they decide not to listen (as they already are about the masking rules) what is the course of action.

“Enforcing this exclusion” is really broad. It has the underlying assumption that the situation is already violent, that there is a thing to enforce against someone who is “disobeying” the thing.

Word salad entirely dancing around the point that you brought up exclusion as a response to someone violating health recommendations like masking during a pandemic but entirely refused to engage with the fact that exclusion (especially from spaces) requires there to be action taken should the exclusion be violated.

Hierarchy is a general organizational concept. Hierarchies are how pretty much all non-trivial software is structured because you need to create layers of abstraction. And obviously the notion of violence is nonsensical in this context.

Comparing by totals isn't really accurate, per capita rates matter more, and the US holds an enormous prison population both by ratio and by total. Further, the Soviets did care a lot about human rights. See Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

Yeah, sorry, my thoughts on the original question/scenario evolved as we were talking so this ended up being messy and unclear.

I want to retract my response about excluding the non-masker, not because I don't think it's possible to do that in a way that respects autonomy and doesn't leverage power structures, but because the specific way that would be done would be fluid and dependent on factors we can't really take into account in the abstract. My answer to your proposed scenario is, I don't have enough information to make a judgment of the situation.

Another way of putting what I'm getting at: when someone/some group is given power over others, the normal social dynamics of how people cooperate and be in conflict with each other are disrupted, because the power-holders can just wield the authority to enforce their will regardless. In your scenario, a non-masker choosing to go against the community's will is a conflict, and the action to be taken should be based around resolving that conflict under the conditions it's taking place in. If we just say "they'll be excluded from community spaces under threat of violence" or "they'll be locked up and forced to reintegrate into the community", we're wielding authority to bypass the actual conflict with all of its messiness and nuance. Nothing actually get resolved other than the person not physically being there anymore. Resentment grows, and we end up with more violence and wielding of authority down the line.

You can work at fast food joint and be miserable or you can sign up to kriegsmarine and be miserable lobbing missiles at brown people far from your own shore. It's a choice.

Nazi cannon fodder was drafted - last time hitlerikans were drafted they started fragging left and right. You'd think that they learn something and apply this knowledge in future wars...

And because you think that there's no need to prosecute said cannon fodder - they still come to poland and other places they settled and whine about how good it was to have slaves and how evil ass soviets sent them back.

Yes, the working classes run both Cuba and China. Their economies are dominated by a working class-owned public sector, and society is oriented in a way that values the people over profit. Private enterprise exists, but only insofar as it is contributing to that overall pro-social aim, and not as a permanent fixture of society but a temporary measure.

I'll get you one better

Kkkrakkkers to nutcracker

Now cry me a river kkkrakkker

Actively sobbing, hope you're happy

I love this quote it's such a good quote. Oh and someone beat you to it!

Stalin was having a bloody good try though.

No?

Owners get richer,

The more people they put in,

Concentration camps

I don't really get what you're trying to do. Capitalists and slavers aren't an ethnicity, nor were they murdered en masse by the USSR. The USSR wasn't genocidal.

Also not sure why you are going into a socialist community and calling socialists "fascists," this is nonsense word salad on top of your strange and baseless jab.

The Soviet Union was a socialist state. The workers ran and controlled the state and the economy to serve the needs of the people. Communism is beyond socialism, and the USSR never developed into that.

What hypocrisy? Your jab didn't even leave anything to address, I had to try to fill in that gap myself. What's your point? That socialism is secretly fascism?