Tedesche

and it’s the government model that is to blame?

Yes, because it leaves itself so prone to authoritarian takeover. As I’ve said before, this is a feature of communism, not a bug. A single, one-party “transitional” government is intended. You might as well just put up a sign that says “Dictator Wanted.” This is why there isn’t a single instance of communism on a nation-state scale that hasn’t quickly devolved into an authoritarian state. It’s not hard to understand this. Your government model has to account for the reality that people are going to disagree on things and faction out. Your model has to be able to manage that process. Communism insists everyone adhere to the same ideology, and those that don’t just get “re-educated.” It’s a horrible ideology, a horrible government model; naïve utopian fantasy at best, cynical authoritarian scheme at worst.

Lemmy overall is just different shades of red. Picking your instance just allows you to select pink vs. crimson.

I don’t know why I find this so funny, but I’m keeping it.

Excellent step forward for a country that is usually quite conservative about this sort of thing.

C is for cunnilingus and cunnilingus is for me!

Simple - it’s the ideal.

Not in my view. I don’t want the State owning all sources of wealth and material goods. The problem with capitalism is that too much of that stuff gets funneled into too few hands. Communism is the same problem, just different people. No thanks.

Not going to waste my time with someone who has such absolutist views untethered to reality.

You can replace Russia with North Korea if it suits you, I forgot to include that one. Yes, the USSR was communist, while modern day Russia much less so. Doesn’t change my point and doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Give me an example of a communist country that has not resulted in the creation of an authoritarian government.

Yes, but you choose to work for a company. Don’t pretend that’s the same as the government of the country you happen to be born in taking ownership of your creations. In a capitalist country, had Alexey Pajitnov chosen to develop the game himself, he would have made much more from it. If he had done that in the USSR, he’d still have his creation and all its monetary proceeds taken away from him.

How’s about a website that generates money, like Facebook or YouTube? Can you own that?

What about products that designed to create ongoing streams of revenue, like a patent on an invention or a piece of art you can collect royalties from every time it is displayed? The USSR famously took ownership of Tetris away from its creator.

Under communism, how does the stock market work? I’m not a big fan of it, but it’s pretty hard to imagine getting rid of it now that the global economy is pretty much dependent on it.

Today, five countries exist that can be said to be communist: China, Russia, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. Of those five, none have achieved actual communism, and several have inarguably embraced capitalism to a great extent. All of them have essentially authoritarian governments. Which is unsurprising, since a dictatorship of the proletariat is central to the Marxist vision of how to create a communist society, and involves the creation of a single-party transitional government that forcibly suppresses all its critics and rivals.

I’m not big into capitalism and I think we should implement plenty of socialist reforms, but I will never understand why some people on the Left—or anyone for that matter—think communism is what we should be striving for.

Well, he appears to be alive. That’s more than I expected of him.

It is not surprising that a community that associates and labels itself with a negative aspect of themselves would devolve into an irrational and hateful space.

So, a community about depression or addiction is doomed to devolve into irrational hatred? I don’t think I follow your logic here.

“Involuntary” means against one’s will, which in this context implies an entitlement to sex.

??? I definitely don’t see how “involuntary” implies entitlement. It just means you want it, but for one reason or another haven’t been able to get it. Entitlement reflects the attitude that you deserve it, which I don’t think the term implies.

As for your characterization of the group, when I visited the subreddit years ago, I saw posts from men complaining about overwhelming anxiety stopping them from approaching women they were attracted to, feelings of low self-esteem or body/facial image issues, and even disabled men trying to contend with how their disabilities limited their options. You’re probably right about some of them, but definitely not all of them.

It makes no sense now to act like it still has the old meaning

I mean, yes, there’s no sense in refusing to acknowledge the present association, but the meanings of words can change, and it isn’t impossible for the term ‘incel’ to return to it’s former meaning if enough people are made aware of its history.

Interesting. Thanks for the history lesson. I have a hard time believing that all of even just most of the men that initially joined her group had “concerning views” if that’s meant to refer to the misogyny we see in those most associated with the term today, but I do know that plenty of the posters I saw on the subreddit years ago when I visited were not of that ilk.

I’m not sure I agree with you though about how the term should be used. I see your point, but I think if the term was originally coined to represent people who were genuinely suffering from external circumstances that put them in the position they’re in, it should remain for them and not those who sabotage themselves via their own toxic behavior. Even if this Alana you mentioned feels otherwise, I still stand by that. People who feel entitled to sex from the people they’re attracted to are not celibate involuntarily in the same way that people who aren’t that way are. One group deserves empathy and compassion; the other deserves scorn and derision. I don’t think it’s productive or fair to the former group to use the same term for both.

That would certainly be interesting if that’s actually the case! I visited the subreddit a long time ago out of curiosity and all the posts I saw were straight men complaining about not being able to get a girlfriend, so I dunno, but maybe. There’s certainly no reason the term can’t be used for someone regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Indeed, sad but true.

I heard about it early on and actually went to visit the sub out of curiosity when it was still somewhat innocent. There were definitely misogynistic posts there already, but plenty of innocent ones as well that didn’t blame women for the outcome. I remember later on there was even a post made by one of the mods about how he was retiring from the sub, because it had been taken over by the misogynists and no longer served the purpose it was intended to. I would bet you have met men that qualify under the original definition, but who don’t identify with the label now because of what it’s come to be associated with.

No prob! Yeah, it’s kinda sad–I’ll bet you’re not the only one who doesn’t know about this, because the shitty misogynist group completely stole the spotlight from the original.

Cute, and forgive me for getting serious in a humor thread, but I can’t stand how the term “incel” has come to functionally mean “any guy who exhibits entitlement towards women.” I’m not blaming OP for this nor really anyone else, it’s just a disappointing thing that’s happened in society IMO. Incel started as a term for men who felt depressed about being unable to find a female partner, and the subreddit they created was originally a supportive space for them. Then it got taken over by angry misogynists and the term became associated with them, while the original group just kind of got forgotten about. That original group deserves attention and empathy as well as the term they coined; the latter group isn’t even “involuntarily celibate,” as they play a very big role in their own celibacy.

Anyway, sorry for ruining the mood if I have, I just think more people should give some thought to who that term originally belonged to.