TranscendentalEmpire

Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist

So, just a vibe check then?

In what manner? Vibes?

Lol, in the same way as the Khmer Rouge....you never extrapolated how they were feudal to begin with.

Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!

First of all, I don't think anyone can rightly claim Mao wasn't a nationalist. He was an ardent anti imperialist and he wasn't an ethno-nationalist, but still a nationalist at heart. Secondly progress is relative to the revolution, Cambodia prior to the revolution was for the most part dependent on substance farming. Adapting a centralized apparatus to control the economy is still progress.

but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.

They didn't deindustrialze, they were never industrialized to begin with.

More vibes.

Hilarious considering your arguments have been completely vibe based. Even when I ask you specify your claims.... Nope just vibes.

He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism.

When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?

Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.

His "agrarian Communism" was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism

Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.

you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist.

Lol, that's not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80's as well.

I think it's pretty obvious that we're just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.

don't believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn't accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.

I think what's pertinent to the original argument was that they were communist while the Khmer Rouge were committing their atrocities. Labeling a country that transitioned from communism to fascism as a purely fascist government is misleading and reductive.

Also, being opposed to a communist government does not mean you're automatically a fascist. As we know communist China attacked communist Vietnam right after the US Vietnam war.

The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment

It's no more complicated than the history of European geopolitics. As an Asian person, I get told this by western people a lot. I think it's just a hold over from the western interpretation of the east being based in mystery. Also, the complications of any topic does not validate the type of misleading/reductive comment you made.

my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn't a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.

I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50's, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.

Pol Pot didn't really divert from communism until the 80's and that was a last ditch effort to get the west to support his failing regime. I don't particularly believe that "We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way." constitutes as denouncing Marxism.

China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.

You haven't supported the argument that the Khmer Rouge were never communist...... Now I'm willing to compromise and say they transitioned away from communism as did the Russians, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they were communist at some point.

How exactly was Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge not communist in the 50s-70's?

Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.

I think that's a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.

The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.

Also, PolPot wasn't criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80's, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in "deviations from Marxism-Leninism"

The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.

If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.

That's a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives....

The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.

The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.

For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years.......no.

Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

When WikiLeaks first came about it's original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn't been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn't take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn't have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn't care so long as his name got air time.

Lol, If was in it for the money I wouldn't be working at a children's hospital run by one of the poorest states in America.

My concern isn't even particularly with the the creator, she's an artist. My problem is when people try to pass it off as a medical device that can help disabled people.

An even larger problem is when hobbyist start making medical devices for children. There are inherent problems they do not understand, because they lack education in the field. Children are so adaptive that if you don't provide them with a device that actually provides sufficient utility they will adapt to not wearing a prosthetic at all, severely limiting their future mobility/functionality.

Dani Clode -Senior Technical Specialist at the Plasticity Lab, Cambridge University | Formlabs 3D Printing Ambassador.

Nah, she just partners with a university lab. This happens all the time at universities, basically just a PR project to attract funding.

Another useless prosthetic designed by 3d printing enthusiasts........

I work in orthotics and prosthetics, and the majority of the articles written about the "next gen" prosthetics are just marketing materials trying to wrangle up VC funding.

Nothing about this makes sense. First of all, no one intuitively knows how to usefully operate a "third thumb", so the learning curve on this is going to impede its adoption. We already have a hard time getting upper limb patients to use their prosthetics, and that's when we're purposely mimicking something they already know.

Secondly, the utility of thumbs in general is that they are opposable. With the placement of their "thumb" the only digit you can utilize with it is your other thumb..... Which means adding a thumb negates the advantage of thumbs in the first place.

Finally, and most the important aspect to any prosthetics is utility. If this is meant to help people missing their other arm.....how do they get the prosthetic on in the first place? And when you do manage to get someone to help you put this on, we're supposed to use our big toe as the action controller? Okay, so that means you can utilize this thing while walking?

Why on gods green earth did they not use myoelectrics? We've had them since the 70's, why is this "cutting edge" prosthetic going backwards in technology?

Oh wait, I can tell you..... Because it was designed by a 3d printing lab with no experience in actual prosthetics. 3d printers are successfully being used in prosthetics, but only when the person utilizing them has a background in prosthetics or biomedical engineering. Ends up it's a lot easier to have a prosthetist learn about 3d printing than it is to teach a 3d printing enthusiast about a field of study that requires education in physiology, anatomy, material science, and fabrication.....

Reading comprehension is still hard for you? My argument was about Cathartic theory, which includes several emotions including sexual urges...... It is a theory from freud, of course it covers sexual urges.

You and the other guy just have no idea what you're talking about. How about providing any kind of source instead of talking out of your ass?

But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.

I doubt that, so far your argument has been based on the anecdotal fallacy mixed with a bit of the appeal to authority fallacy.

The point is you can reduce anything to its origin.

Okay, but how does the modern version of cathartic theory differ from what freud postulated?

I agree you can't reduce things based on its original alone , which is why I included a scientific source as evidence......