Sehe ich eigentlich irgendwo wie mein "scoring" ist, also wieviele Hochwählies und Runterwählies ich ansammele? Falls es das nicht gibt, ist's denke ich auch gar nicht schlecht.
That's alarming behavior, and it's coming from the core Lemmy developers. I had hoped they would keep it confined to LemmyGrad, but I'm not feeling so confident in that any more.
I fail to see racism and orientalism present in this thread. What I do see are people linking to lists of human rights violations committed by the CCP, people complaining that unequivocally pro-CCP messaging is disingenuous, and people upset that a ban reason was not adequately explained.
I'm a card-carrying communist who sees a lot wrong with China's handling of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. From what I'm seeing about lenny.ml, it seems like milquetoast criticisms are being met with bans and censorship, and I see prominent users defending this practice citing "imperialistic anti-China propaganda" as being the reason why the uninitiated doesn't blindly praise the CCP. This belief is rooted in some fact - American media tends to portray eastern countries in a harshly negative light - but I hardly think that means that all criticism is made in bad faith.
I'm reminded of unequivocally capitalist sites banning mentions of communism and critiques of capitalism, and I believe that this trend does nothing besides foster the echo chambers that I, at least, have been trying to escape from.
The fact that you fail to see the racism and orientalism in this thread is precisely the problem. The narrative about human rights violations by the CPC comes directly from US propaganda outlets, and has been debunked in detail repeatedly. Yet, racist westerners continue to regurgitate it because it fits perfectly with their chauvinistic world view. American media doesn't just portray eastern countries harshly, it lies shamelessly about them.
Fighting what you perceive as racism but pushing your own racist views seems like a strange stance to take. But I would be lying if I said I was surprised.
Yet, racist westerners continue to regurgitate it because it fits perfectly with their chauvinistic world view. American media doesn’t just portray eastern countries harshly, it lies shamelessly about them.
Right there. If we are going by the rule of "Being critical of a country or group of people makes you racist" then statements such as that would surely qualify.
Aside from the fact that you're basically doing the "when a black person calls me cracker, they are being racist" thing, the quote you give stipulates the group "racist westerners" and there are many westerners on this board, perhaps even including themself, who they are surely not calling all racist, so I don't see the problem. There is a subset of the population of westerners that behaves in just that way. Supremacist thought isn't as popular in China as in America, due to historical reasons, but Han people with racial chauvinist beliefs do certainly exist, and if you wanted to talk about Han people who are chauvinistic, you can. That is not the same as just saying offhand that China's a fucking ethnostate, like multiple people in this thread have.
The main thing is that generalization is inconsistent in its implication when it refers to in-groups versus out-groups, so a speaker generally should be more specific when referring to out-groups with generalizations. If we had a Chinese communist here that you were talking to and it was clear the two of you both valued racial equality, and then you said something about "Han chauvinists" in Chinese society, I think it would be pretty clear that you don't mean all Han people in Chinese society or even the bulk of them. If it's just people with little personal experience of or connection to China talking and someone remarks about "Han chauvinists" with little context, it becomes less clear.
Again, for ease of understanding, imagine a white and a black stranger talking about black crime vs a bunch of white strangers from white communities talking about it. The latter group can still talk about it, but if they don't want to be misunderstood, they should probably make sure they are all on the same page first.
Being critical of a . . . group of people makes you racist
I'd just noticed something similar to this myself, a user banned for saying something about "Russian Trolls" and another banned for saying "I hope so. All the russian and chinese apologists on here make me mad."
This feels quite extreme and I am wondering "will commenting on this get me banned"
I think calling someone a "Russian Troll" should absolutely be a bannable offense unless you actually have evidence that they are a Russian troll and not just someone saying things about Russia you don't agree with. "Apologist" has negative connotations but I personally don't agree with banning someone for that.
In any case, if you can resist namecalling, it sounds like you'll do fine?
I got banned for "trolling" when all I did was participate in shitty ask lemmy. I created that place with the vision of being like shitty ask reddit but shitposting isn't allowed here and setting up a custom instance is really hard. Fuckin bullshit.
You joined a site and didn't read the global rules. There are many places for shitposting, some that even embrace it, and this place makes it as clear as possible that this isn't one of them.
My first console was the PS2! My favorite game was Ratchet and Clank: Up your Arsenal (thats Ratchet and Clank 3 for those outside of the US). I think its underrated, and I know there are moreso underrated titles, but it did not get as big as it should have IMO. I dont use my playstations much anymore, as I have a PC now, but playing in turns with my brother is probably my fondest memories.
Hallo, mal sehen was hier auf feddit.de so los ist. Bis jetzt sieht die Community hier sehr freundlich aus, gefällt mir. Anmeldung und aktivierung war schnell und einfach.
Elaine Kew (K.E.W.) was a royal pain in the ass. She was a former actress in NYC back in the day, a teacher (tutored our children) who was diagnosed with MS 25-30 years ago.
We met and somehow put up with her shenanigans.
She smoked weed, and liked to get drunk on our terrace so they had to call the firemen to come assist her back into her chair. I was not allowed to help, and actually told to leave...since, apparently, my ass didn't rate up there with the young firemen.
I got a promotion & relocation with the company I was working for, so for a few years we were not in the same (US) state, but kept in touch.
After we moved to Spain, she decided enough was enough & joined us (our oldest son flew back to help her pack, get her shit together & sell her condo.
Ever independent, she has her own flat with a view of the Med. & mountain.
We are going to take her ashes to Finland next year, (her parents were born there), go to the mountain she used to ski and (if allowed) spread her ashes with some food grade glitter (her last, most fabulous act).
I'm careful during the initial pour to not drown the coffee. Success is when I can get the coffee wet without forcing coffee up the sides of the cone filter. I try to move the pouring water around around over the coffee when I pour to make sure that everything is getting directly hit by water. I stop pouring once the bubbles that form on top of the coffee are no longer brownish-looking. If that's a method, then I do whatever that is called.
Seems very close to osmotic flow... at least that's what some ppl call it. Ya I've found that not drowning the coffee, and not pouring after the bubble get to the top, tastes much better.
All other things being equal (coffee quality, brewing method, grind level, etc), underextraction or overextraction is always worth keeping in mind. I never liked my grandmother's percolator coffee because it ran water through the same coffee repeatedly. I try to use methods that, in spite of their implementation differences, put a reasonable amount of water through a sane amount of coffee a single time.
I like neurodivergent in the same way I like queer.
It’s got a real punk feeling; I don’t into fit in to your normalised perception of reality, I don’t need to and I relish not fitting into this narrow definition of what it is to be.
I feel very differently about my ADHD and my queerness. My queerness is only a problem for me in that some of the people I share this world with want to eradicate me for it. There's nothing wrong with it inherently. I like being queer, or at least I would if it didn't result in so many people wanting to kill me.
I don't feel that way about my ADHD. If I could cure it, I would. The problem with my brain isn't that other people don't like the way it works, it's that the way it works is actively detrimental to my goals, desires, and very existence. Social change could mitigate but not erase the problems I face due to having it.
You have actually inadvertently highlighted one of the reasons I'm a little uneasy about the term "neurodivergence." It feels less like a term for people who struggle than a fun club people can join to be rebellious, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm okay with anyone who identifies as queer being allowed into the queer club, no questions asked. Pretty much the only requirement I have for the label "queer" is that you not be a (literal or figurative) cop. But it seems to me that the label "neurodivergent" takes a pre-existing label, "mentally ill," and expands it to just... anyone who doesn't like The Man keeping them down, I guess. I'm not sure I like that. I feel like maybe it dilutes the meaning of having a neurological difference a little.
I think I disagree with how you’re defining neurodivergence and I certainly feel differently about my ADHD.
ADHD is part of who I am, I really like how my brain functions and there are lots of benefits to thinking the way I do. The structure of society and to a large extend capitalism is what causes conflicts with my way of thinking. I am not wired to sit at a desk for 8 hours a day for the rest of my life. But that is what society demands it isn’t a problem with me
Yes my ADHD can make some of my personal goals more difficult, but I can manage that through medication and strategies like anything else that may prevent me from achieving my goals.
Lactose Intolerance prevents me from eating cheese, but I still want to eat cheese and am happy that I can take medication to do so; it’s a good thing that our economy isn’t built around a requirement to eat cheese though, treating those who can’t as lesser, other or wrong.
I don’t like the term mentally ill because it implies there is a normality or standard. It creates a false dichotomy between the ill and the not ill. I don’t accept that.
My brain is how it is, my ADHD is how it is, my depression is how it is. But it is my brain chemistry, it is unique to me, is is part of who I am physiologically and shapes who I am intellectually & spiritually.
I am not ill. I simply do no fit in society’s false idea of normality. I diverge from that idea.
I mean no disrespect, but does the fact that you have to take medication to achieve your personal goals not suggest that something is wrong, or at least that you would still need those meds in a socialist utopia? I don't think there's anything wrong with taking meds, but I wish I didn't have to take meds in order to achieve my goals.
Lactose intolerance is actually perhaps a good analogy. Because, yes, life thankfully does not revolve around eating cheese, and you would certainly be much worse off if it did... but that doesn't change the fact that eating cheese without your medication will make you sick. It's still a problem you have to take meds for, even in a world where it's relatively easy to avoid cheese.
That's basically how I feel my ADHD would be without capitalism. Less bad, sure, but still a net negative that requires treatment and makes my life harder.
For more on why I consider my ADHD an illness, see my replies to Gaywallet later down the thread. It's literally tried to kill me.
I think the things you compared to meds are a little different in that most of what you listed is preventative, but point taken.
I'm not even necessarily saying that nobody with ADHD should call themself neurodivergent, even. It's your choice how you identify. It's just that some of the ideas people take away from that really bother me. Some people seem to have concluded that because they don't think their ADHD is a detriment, it must not be a detriment for anyone, and you're only suffering from a disease of capitalism. I've heard far too many people with otherwise decent politics claim that psychiatry should be abolished because under socialism, no one will need treatment.
My ADHD meds do work, I think. I've been on a couple kinds and these seem to work the best. There are certain things that none of the meds have made me not struggle with, though.
Random
Active