robinn2 [he/him]

Marxist-Leninist ☭ | ProleWiki Profile

Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize

formerly @[email protected]

  • 2 Posts
  • 68 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle

  • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlfixed cyberghost's "meme"
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They’re the type of socialism (social democracy) that I approve of.

    Social democracy is not socialism, it is social-fascism, class collaboration leeching off the wealth of the global south like a settler vampire from the hill of the imperialism. Look at how social democratic settlers treat immigrants, or minorities/natives. You fundamentally do not understand what socialism is.

    And no offense, but you have no fucking idea what the the PRC is doing. You know nothing about their government structure, how policy is carried out, or the way the system functions at all. I guarantee you could not name the tiers of government, or even three government officials without looking it up. Your ignorance is shown right away by the fact that you say “CCP” (Chinese Communist Party) when the correct acronym is “CPC” (Communist Party of China). This is such a simple mistake that proves you have not read any media outside of the west regarding China.







  • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlfixed cyberghost's "meme"
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ugh horrible argument. No, you have to contend with the source I provided, not skip it and provide a different source, especially when the prolewiki page is a challenge to the Wikipedia page, and so citing the latter is like citing a work against which a polemic is directed at the polemic as an “alternative.”

    Apparently Wikipedia is “not biased”, they just forbid certain sources, include U.S. government aligned sources by and large (this article you’ve cited sources Radio Free Europe, a CIA propaganda outlet; the New York Times summaries of situations in countries the U.S. is opposed to (this is done 10x), despite the source being a rubber stamp for the U.S. government; a Washington Post opinion article which completely obfuscates the nature of the press as a tool of class rule), and so on. Sorry, Wikipedia is biased.







  • “Horrible people exist” is the claim now? I thought they were “heroic defenders against an aggressor?” No mention of how I turned your “he’s Jewish” defense on its head, no mention of how Zelensky wears and advertises Nazi merchandise, no mention of how these horrible people who simply “exist” are propped up by Zelensky and the government (no, all I showed was that “horrible people exist”). No mention of how these Nazis are CURRENTLY harming minorities in Ukraine, “let’s just worry about that after” no I don’t think so. I fucking hate Nazis, and I am not waiting for ANYTHING to challenge the government being soft on them (supporting them, advertising them, praising them) and allowing them to commit atrocities against their own population. Fuck you for supporting this, and in a just world you would be shot.


  • Eh well I did prove they’re racist and completely wrong, but good job ignoring all of that.

    1. Says something incorrect
    2. Gets well cited rebuttal
    3. “Omg I won cuz I made you mad”

    Classic reactionary tradition, remember there’s no accusation I didn’t prove. If there is one, show it to me. Instead, you have to resort to inhaling copium about “getting to people.” Yeah, racism and misinformation generally aren’t tolerated. Sink into that cognitive dissonance like a good little fool.





  • I’m trying to talk in good faith, but I don’t have 10 hours to read about it. I’ve only researched about 1 or 2 hours. But I’m definitely not just taking your website at face value.

    Right, so you didn’t read my carrd and then linked a different source instead (super good faith) that I completely refuted (apparently you felt no need to respond to my complete rebuttal]. So you didn’t read the comment or the response to your rebuttal, and yet you’re saying you’re acting in good faith because you don’t have a lot of time/haven’t done a lot of research? Whatever, then don’t act like you’re qualified to have an opinion.

    But I’m definitely not just taking your website at face value.

    What does this even mean? “Face value”? It’s a collection of sources. Seriously, if you don’t have the knowledge to even respond to my points, much less my complete refutation of your own points, don’t ghost respond to me acting like I’ve said something crazy to get support in another thread. It’s cowardly and pathetic.