Permanently Deleted

    • AdamSandler [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      That's not lib. It is perfectly fine to be a pacifist and to shy away from weapons.

      • TillieNeuen [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Thanks, I mostly posted it not so much because I honestly think it's a lib take, so much as I think it's something that definitely puts me in the minority on this site. But yeah, I'm a lover, not a fighter. The only "weapon" I've ever fired is an apple cannon at an apple orchard, which was very satisfying. I hit a sheet metal cutout of sasquatch in the head! But I'd prefer to never touch an actual firearm in my entire life.

        • AdamSandler [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          It isn't lib to not want to hurt people. You're not any less of a leftist for your beliefs.

    • D61 [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Purpose made tools of death should make any reasonable person a little bit nervous.

    • rozako [she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Completely normal take! I think arming leftists is important, but I also think American leftists have the tendency to glamorize or have gun fever sometimes. It's ingrained into the culture there, even if you're not the "normal" type of gun lover. It's always been something that I support but also wish wasn't necessary or whatever.

  • 389aaa [it/its]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Man what, there's nothing wrong with liking skyscrapers. Aesthetic criticisms of 'bourgeoisie opulence' are dumb, the bourgeoisie aren't bad because they don't have Internet Leftist ApprovedTM aesthetics, they're bad because of theft of surplus value and all the shit of varying degrees of horrificness they do to make the profit line continue to go up.

    • 389aaa [it/its]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      I'd also like to note on the side that this kind of criticism directly led into the 'homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence' thing because it fundamentally relies on the same logic, so let's try to not go down that road again? We already know what the potential consequences are, and they're really not worth being 'allowed' to bully dudes who wanna dress like a capitalist from a soviet propaganda poster or something.

      • AdamSandler [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        While I get this point, and I do think the skyscraper argument is dumb, its not nearly as bad as the homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence thing

        • 389aaa [it/its]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Obviously not, but both arguments rely on the same stupid aesthetic judgements. If aesthetic judgements are prevalent and accepted it makes 'homosexuality is bourgeoisie decadence' style-things that much easier for people to accept. I don't know what form that would take in the modern era, but no matter what it wouldn't be good. Better to mercilessly snuff out arguments that rely on aesthetic judgements in the first place to avoid the risk.

          • AdamSandler [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I agree. Aesthetics is all subjective and weaponization of it is usually stupid.

            • grisbajskulor [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Idk about OP but if his brain works like mine, the uneasiness comes from the fact that they cost a lot of money that theoretically could go to housing homeless people or something.

              It takes a bit of reprogramming to realize that there is nothing about socialist countries that makes nice things impossible, and that we are actually capable of having nice things AND housing the homeless. At least that's my belief.

              Also look at this cool ass early Soviet shit

              • AdamSandler [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                It’s absolutely possible to have skyscrapers and to also house the homeless.

  • AdamSandler [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    I'm a massive car guy, into military history kinda, and I have to physically tell myself to not say shit about other tendencies because even if I was right to do so (I'm not) it would be really hypocritical. It should be mentioned that the first two products are not necessarily lib things always. I don't see a major ideological problem with liking cars and motorsport, or being into military history. Also, your skyscraper comment isn't fully thought out. A city, if it cannot expand outward, will expand upward. Liking modernism isn't a bad thing when it comes to architecture.

    • Whodonedidit [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Same. My partner is much better about it but they own like half the internet and aren't going away anytime soon. Plus I have a CC with them and its just stupidly convenient.

      I use most of that as an excuse tho

  • stummVonBordwehr [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I come from an educated bourgeoisie background, and I can't really abandon judging people by their intelligence/education. Makes me feel like I'm just a champagner socialist, but I can't help it because it's too deep a part of my identity.

  • rozako [she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I love the show Shark Tank. Literally a personified show for capitalism, but it's fun background nonsense to me.

  • PapaEmeritusIII [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Though I hate the fact that America relies so heavily on cars, I do love my old shitbox jeep. It’s exactly as old as I am, I do most maintenance and repair by myself, and I have so much fun driving it. I hope to own no other car for the rest of my life.

    I’d trade it in a heartbeat for good, nationwide public transport though.

  • LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA [he/him]M
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    I still use the f-slur to trash talk in online videog*mes and I fucking hate it. I'm bi, and I just can't get it out of my head when I'm shit talking.