his solution (for a class of “intellectuals” like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill

This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” what they’re describing tends to devolve into “a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions” when questioned about what a “dictatorship of the proletariat” actually entails. Often they’ll try to justify it by saying it’s only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.

See what they actually mean is that they’re not really autistic, but they say they are because they think it’s a good excuse for antisocial behavior.

It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.

Let me approach this from a different angle. If a military defeat is necessary to create revolutionary conditions, is it not then in the best interest of the working class in each imperialist power for the other to win, and does that not then put the working class in each imperialist power at odds with one another?

Don’t you believe in internationalism? Solidarity?

How many hundreds of thousands of lives does it cost to create revolutionary conditions, and how can you be so arrogant as to cheer while they’re fed into the meatgrinder, believing with such certainty that it means you’ll get your chance at revolution?

Kindly point out where I expressed critical support for western imperialism.

So does “tankie” and “woke.” I used mine correctly, you are indeed a tankie. When a chud calls a left-wing political activist woke, at least they’re using it correctly, even if they don’t necessarily know that they are.

You called me a liberal for - let me check - opposing imperialism regardless of who’s doing it. Interesting, do you think that fits the definition?

I thought it would be obvious I was mocking you by repeating the viewpoint you expressed without the air of pretentiousness that you surround it with, but I guess I was the stupid one for thinking you were capable of recognizing sarcasm.

Also “critical support” for what, Russian imperialism? Why does Russian imperialism deserve “critical support” while western imperialism deserves direct opposition?

You’re right we should be running dogs for western imperialism instead.

Ah yes, because there are only two options, you’re either a running dog for western imperialism or a running dog for Russian imperialism. But being a running dog for Russian imperialism is actually cool because it will lead to communism somehow. Don’t ask what happens in between, that’s not important…

And yes it will improve revolutionary conditions as the contradictions become more aparent

Wow that’s incredible, why don’t we just skip waiting for the imperialists to do it and carry out the genocide ourselves. That’ll really make those contradictions more apparent, I can’t wait!

And libs often seems to function for tankies in exactly the same way. I’m an anarchist but when I argue with tankies I get called a lib even as I call for the overthrow of capitalism. Funny how that works, almost as if the problem is dogmatism.

You’re right, the Soviet Union joined the allies against the Nazis because they were explicitly not revolutionary defeatists, which cannot be said of a large number of modern day tankies.

Revolutionary defeatism is just accelerationism with academic window dressing. Thinking that the defeat of western imperialism at the hands of Russian imperialism will improve revolutionary conditions is moronic and dangerous.

For starters, all liberals have Reddit and Lemmy.world, which are large. Where do leftists have?

I agree that lemmy.world is a primarily liberal instance, but I haven’t seen the same level of censorship on lemmy.world as I have on hexbear, though I’m open to evidence to the contrary. You can create a space for a specific ideology without resorting to such an extreme level of censorship and lemmy.world is proof of that. Also see my home instance slrpnk.net, we’re a primarily anarchist instance and we haven’t had to resort to extreme censorship to achieve that.

Secondly, this comment is indistinguishable from concern-trolling. I’d have to read through your post history or go back and forth with you to know if you were an honest actor or just a troll.

By what method do you distinguish concern-trolling from legitimate concern? Concern-trolls generally want to shut down discussion, and the whole reason for my concern is that censorship shuts down discussion.

Thirdly, most of us know your views, and have rejected them.

They’re not my views, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I disagree with the comments that got them banned?

We don’t live in a tame world, lots of people have deeply problematic viewpoints. When someone who expresses such viewpoints is otherwise well-intentioned it’s better to address them directly and potentially change some minds (or at least plant the seed) than to shun them and further entrench them into a problematic worldview.

I disagree with those comments, but they seem pretty mild to have been banned. I just don’t see how it’s productive to ban all liberals the moment they try to explain their views. All that does is push people away who could potentially have been a future ally.

Don’t you have something better to do with your time?

No, there’s definitely a lot of professions that are completely pointless or even counterproductive.

Receptionists, administrative assistants, door attendants, store greeters, lobbyists, corporate lawyers, telemarketers, public relations specialists, middle managers, literally every job in insurance. I could go on.

The Netherlands is less than half the size of my state. There is nowhere in the Netherlands that is more rural than where I live right now, lol.

Yes, because it’s not enough. It’s possible to acknowledge good work while also criticizing the ways that it falls short, otherwise we risk cheering for the drop-in-the-bucket charity that doesn’t challenge the status quo and credulously thinking our problems are being solved when more needs to be done.

People definitely go overboard with their criticisms, but there are legitimate criticisms to be made. While his philanthropy is objectively good and makes a positive difference in people’s lives, it does nothing to address the systemic causes of the problems he highlights.

His content is also completely apolitical, which rubs people the wrong way when he covers topics a lot of people see as inherently political like extreme poverty, homelessness, and healthcare.

They’re leaving out that philanthropy is a big part of his videos. Sometimes it’s game show style where the winner(s) get huge rewards and sometimes it’s direct charity like the “I built 100 houses” video. People watch them because they’re often feelgood stories.

It can be a bit controversial as well because people who are more politically engaged often get frustrated by charity when they believe the problem the charity purports to solve is systemic. Whenever he posts philanthropy videos it triggers a huge shitstorm on Twitter of people expressing that frustration and a bunch of people coming to his defense.