Yes I think that’s the intent. The first is jury nullification. The second is a call to violence. Two very different things, even though crossing the line from one to the other is super easy on a public forum. I just don’t think the post by the admins phrased that well, that’s all.
Yes it can come off as encouraging crime. So what is the outcome now? Jury nullification ok or not ok? You cannot enforce a rule based on conditional future outcomes. If one wants to eliminate the chance of potentially encouraging future crimes, one needs to ban any and all forms of jury nullification. Was this the decision made? I am unclear on this.
Doesn’t the very concept of jury nullification only apply to cases where a crime has already been committed and then a jury is called upon to reach a verdict on said crime? This honestly reads as mental gymnastics. Or perhaps it could be worded better. Do you mean to say that jury nullification will be fine going forward, no matter what the crime, but you still must forbid calls to violence against named or otherwise identifiable individuals or specific groups or people and/or the glorification of violence in general? This would be better wording I think, though still hard to distinguish and enforce consistently. I find the concept of “jury nullification for future crimes” hard to grasp.
Couldn’t have said this better. Memes and all. Kudos.
Thank you for the exchange, however I can see that you are mostly interested in educating me and I am not interested in such an imbalanced exchange. I have been through all this before, when the USSR and its fall were still very relevant topics. Also, as already discussed, I am not as passionate about this as you are. I guess we will both see where China is headed. I agree that markets do not cease under socialism, in fact I do not think they will ever cease to exist completely, people will continue to trade and barter at some scale and I think that is ok.
Hey thanks for making the effort. You are clearly more passionate about this than I am. And you clearly consider today’s China a case of “existing socialism”. I do not. And I’m surprised that a number of people still do. Indeed the Trotskyist left and other related currents in the West have always had to deal with the paradox of advocating communism while at the same time opposing most if not all regimes that claimed to be communist. On the other hand more traditional communists - some would call them Stalinists if we’re using labels - who would advocate for regimes that many considered oppressive and were happy to see fall (including everyone who considered such regimes to be a degeneration of the original revolutionary potential). Personally I don’t feel I have a big stake in this. I am more and more thinking that these are experiments that largely failed no matter how you look at it, and hope to see new movements that will update their repertoire, learn from the failings, and succeed better. I am not sure what form or shape such movements will take. But am also not betting on capitalism not leading to the destruction of the world sooner or later. When I sometimes appear to defend China it is because I do not think that western-style capitalism and liberal democracy are the only ways that capitalism can function.
These are people I know personally. So no, not online people. And some are organized, some were, it varies. They are at best ambivalent on China. The idea that if you identify as a communist, talk like a communist, or are member of a communist organization, you should automatically support China would be frankly absurd in my circles. A strong minority of communists were at best ambivalent on the USSR even back in the day, so this is not new. And yes there are also those who will identify with and feel the need to support any regime that is in name or in some of its practices “communist”. Whereas others will take a more critical stance. I am in Europe by the way, this may matter, I find that the way words are used across the pond sometimes varies. Even within Europe, in much of Eastern Europe I understand that “communist” and “Russophile ” are thought to go hand in hand. Not so in my country, not necessarily. Anyway, it’s complicated.
Oh I know quite a few communists who would absolutely not support the PRC. They wouldn’t shill for the US either. Nor for Russia nor the USSR for that matter.
This looks more like a scythe that doubles as a weapon to me
That sounds comically bad. Like hard to believe bad. Even the slightest mention of anti-Zionist feeling is forbidden now on Reddit?
Turning over to the round side seems to have garnered a lot more views. I wonder whether he would have stayed flat if it were otherwise. After all many more are making content online in the hopes of money and fame than in some quest for truth.
I am disgusted and appalled.
Sure, ok; it just read like that. Maybe I misunderstood.
I am not sure that I would share your attitude in “benefiting” a developing nation with your perspectives, but yeah, death threats not cool in any case. As I said in my original comment, there may be more to this than meets the eye. Maybe these guys are being jerks and intolerant of other viewpoints more often than not, can’t tell. As far as I’m concerned it is ok for people to argue passionately, angrily even, so long as they do not seek to undermine discussion or, worse, hurt others just because they disagree with them.
Good idea, if anyone can point me to it or to specific examples, I would appreciate it. Also do not care enough to start an investigation by myself.
Fwiw, I wouldn’t judge an entire instance by a handful individual posts. Users will be users. But still, some evidence would be a lot better than no evidence. Plenty of evidence would be even better.
I understand that they are staunchly pro-communist and also take a pro-Palestine, including some of them (many of them?) a more clearly pro-Hamas stance. And that all of this could annoy many of the centrist liberals that seem to dominate here. But from perusing the lemmygrad link I do not see clear signs of hate speech, certainly not a clear hate speech agenda as you would see with some hate groups. And judging by the comments on here many seem to be happy to be “rid of them” because they are “annoying”, or “immature”, or “tankies”, or whatever. It really reads largely like “their opinions annoy me” so I’m glad they’re gone.
There may be more to it, I don’t know, but personally I wouldn’t like lemmy.world, an otherwise fine instance by all means, to become a centrist liberal silo where no other opinion outside (mostly US-centric) liberal orthodoxy is heard. So yeah, not convinced that this was the right decision, basically because of a lack of evidence.
One is a savings bank, the other an investment bank. The problem is these aren’t separate anymore.
Don’t we all love a strawman