MacNCheezus

Well, in my experience from using Twitch it’s predominantly female streamers who do these kind of streams, so if there’s a policy against it, it would make sense that it would affect mostly women. That’s not sexist in and of itself.

But when you say that the policy is sexist because it affects mostly women, it implies that its unfair not to expect women to engage in nudity, doesn’t it.

Interesting how we've gone from "expecting nudity from women is sexist" to "NOT expecting nudity from women is sexist".

Well, you see, it turned out that people are far more willing to fork over money when they get to see boobs instead of noobs.

Hmm, so I like movies that kinda play with your expectations and turn out to go into a completely different direction than you'd expect.

Dragon (2011) with Donnie Yen is a good example. You think you're getting another Kung Fu flick, but it turns out to be more of a detective story of almost Sherlock Holmes-style complexity.

Yes there’s kung fu but it’s mostly esoteric and there’s only a few fights, but it’s still a fascinating movie.

Most movies are incredibly dumb and boring.

FOSS itself is leftist, and a rejection of Capitalism. The ability for the users to simply fork off if they don't like the way something is heading is precisely an advantage of leftist organization, which is impossible with Capitalist Reddit.

Again, I find such statements very interesting, especially given that you so firmly rejected competition as inherently capitalist and undesirable. Because being able to just take something and fork it actually encourages competition. If I don't like where a project is headed, and I can take their code and make my own version, and if I do a better job at it than the original maintainers, I could even outclass them. Isn't that exactly the type of stuff you hate about capitalism?

Truth Social and Gab are built on Mastodon, yes. FOSS itself is a rejection of Capitalism, Capitalists going in and taking advantage of existing leftist infrastructure doesn't mean the infrastructure itself is Capitalist.

No, but it isn't inherently anti-Capitalist either, and that was my point. Also, they're both playing by the rules and making their source code available as required by the GPL, although AFAIK it DID take some legal threats before they complied. Commercial exploitation of FOSS is something that's explicitly allowed by most licenses, and Lemmy's is no different. They could have chosen one that forbids such things, but they did not.

Your last paragraph is a complete non-sequitor. Much of the USSR was indeed a failure, there was a ludicrous amount of corruption at the Politburo level, and the further up you went the less democratic it was, as only local Soviets were purely democratically accountable to the Workers. With each rung you went up, it was less accountable to the Workers. However, absolutely none of what you say about competition, the USSR, or otherwise follows logically.

Your style of argumentation and tenuous grasp on logic never fails to baffle me. So you agree that Soviet Russia was an abject failure and had nothing to do with "real" communism, and you also seem to agree that the Fediverse is a much better representation of it, but then you simply reject all my other conclusions without feeling the need to even explain that at all. Sorry, but I find this entirely unconvincing.

Communism itself doesn't depend on everyone following in lock-step, Capitalism does.

But if everyone ISN'T in lockstep then there might be... dare I say it... competition? And I thought that was a capitalist concept entirely.

Really not sure what you're getting at. Why are you even on a platform rejecting Capitalism, rather than Reddit, if you're so sure that leftism is a bad thing?

Does Lemmy as a whole reject capitalism, or is it just individual servers like this one? Because I really don't get nearly as much hate on any other ones, it's always here.

Also, I find it very interesting that if Lemmy or the Fediverse in general are leaning rather left, why did they choose to implement a federated model? This makes every server owner king of their own personal fiefdom, able to allow whatever content and apply whatever rules they please. Therefore, it is impossible by design to enforce that everyone had to reject capitalism.

Yes, there is some measure of democratic control in the defederation mechanism, which allows the community as a whole to somewhat isolate and contain those who don't want to adhere to the common rules, but it doesn't get rid of them entirely. And it certainly enables some amount of competition among instances getting a share of the total userbase.

A for-profit company could even take the codebase and spin off their own reddit clone absolutely for free. This has actually happened at least twice with Mastodon — both Gab and Truth Social are using it internally (of course both are defederated islands, but rather large ones compared to the average server size).

If this is real communism, then perhaps it's accurate to say that previous attempts such as the UdSSR were all failures, and communism by dictatorship doesn't work at all. But perhaps then that also implies that some level of internal competition is healthy and normal, and it is by no means required that EVERYONE has to be on the same page in order for it to work.

Ah yes, I get it. You want to have a satisfactory lifestyle, but you want to stay mad at the same time.

Good luck with that LOL

I don't think people envy the rich and powerful the way you're describing, I think people envy the idea of being able to maintain a good standard of living without having to work themselves to the bone to do it.

But do the extremely rich really get to rest and enjoy their spoils the way you think? Just look at someone like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, they just keep working even though they already have far more than they can spend. Gates is especially funny because he’s working full time on figuring out how to spend his fortune. Almost like having all that money just became another problem that now requires solving.

Yes I’m sure it helps not having to worry about the rent or the grocery bills, but everything else is likely just another unnecessary luxury that’ll quickly lose its appeal once you’ve had it.

I don't want a mansion and fifty nice cars, I want an apartment in the city in walking distance to transit and stuff to do, and then to also save more money at the end of the month than I did at the start.

Okay, see what you just did there? You went from “being able to maintain a good standard of living without having to work themselves to the bone to do it” to having an apartment in the city in walking distance to transit, and I’m willing to bet you’re not thinking of living next to skid row either. And then you want to be able to save money on top of that, too.

Basically, you blew up your expectation of maintaining an acceptable standard of living without too much stress, which is likely more achievable than you think if you’re flexible, to something that’s far out of your reach, all by inflating the meaning of “good”.

Do you NEED that apartment before you can be satisfied with your standard of living? Or is it something that would be nice to have, but not essential?

If you believe the Cambodians were communists, you have to believe that the nazis were.

I mean, Hitler very clearly wrote in Mein Kampf that he DID take inspiration from socialism, except that, like all other communist dictators before or after him, he thought that HE had found the missing ingredient to make it work.

Literally took years of capitalist economics in high school and college, it is one of the reasons I'm a communist.

Hah, imagine getting a "capitalist" education from people who don't have to worry about their own job security because they have tenure. Isn't that just like getting a communist education from a Wall Street CEO?

Chinese feudal landlords didn't believe in socialism, that didn't stop the communists from doing land reform.

Yes. The secret ingredient was (and always is) called violence.

By definition revolutions involve violence.

Okay, at least you're honest enough to admit that.

Are you condemning the capitalist revolutions that threw off the monarchies? The status quo involved comparatively massive amounts of violence then, and it does now.

Yes, I condemn all violence, capitalist or otherwise. But I honestly don't experience capitalism as particularly violent. My biggest successes all came through non-violent means, by educating myself and improving my technical and people skills. Amazingly, it turns out that if you're willing to learn what others will pay you for, more often than not, they'll actually just hand you money without you having to make any threats about taking over their whole company.

Okay, fair enough, I did miss that part apparently.

Is it fair to say, then, that according to your definition, communism is just capitalism but with democratized production?

If capitalism encourages or favors competition, how come there is such a thing as companies? Those generally require some level of cooperation. If everyone works against each other, they would simply fall apart.

Also, why do we often see companies getting bigger and bigger, sometimes even by means of two competitors merging together? If capitalism encourages competition, shouldn’t they both be better off staying separate?