Whoever it is decided to ask the question in the negative which already makes it seem like a push poll.

Survey questions should be reversible anyway

You’re failing to understand that the interest of “tankies” is in democracy being enforced by a proletarian control of the state. The copypastas you were getting were poor communication but they had a point.

The fact that you’re comfortably arguing in parallel with blatant neoliberals should give you pause, or are you going to tell me they are less of a concern because they are not “authoritarian,” because when people are richer than God and control immense swaths of production and politicians themselves while skirting regulation to fuck over the workers their class made desperate by enclosing the commons, that is not “authoritarian”? This whole thing seems kind of bankrupt to me as far as political theory goes. The mechanisms of control are diffused by various means into the economy and divided among the public/private sector, but if the private sector owns the public sector (and it does) you’ve got a class of kings who only half-pretend they aren’t (Zuck deliberately getting that Caesar haircut is a tell).

There’s just no point. Literally no one among the communists I’ve seen cheers on killing dissidents just because. Fascist collaborators, sure, but not mere dissidents. You’re just inventing people to disparage.

Polcomp is an intellectually impoverished and politically illiterate system

Almost like “tankies” don’t have some religious reverence for “authority” but in fact specifically believe it should be directed in a certain way . . .

This will also be colored by the fact that the shitheads on beehaw can’t even see what you say, but among instances that don’t block us this makes sense.

Incidentally, this is a great argument to China that they shouldn’t back down.

I think so? I’ve been blind before but I thought I remembered “agenda” being on there too.

I have no doubt that there are some, but there are also insanely unscrupulous groups that actively use elementary schools as military bases and so on, so I don’t think it works as a full explanation compared even to the religion hypothesis.

My issue was the “gorillion”, not the 20. There are other options like, idk, “bazillion” that work just as well, or just a nice simple “trillion” for the absurdity.

I feel like it’s more the racism than the religious devotion, but who’s to say?

What about a male prostitute?

They are vastly, vastly less common and this is just a poor attempt at a counterpoint because conservatives also dislike male prostitutes, but the answer is that to the socialist male prostitution also represents a problem. It is a smaller problem in absolute terms, but on a “per capita” basis it is of similar severity.

“If we just remove the context of the largest human trafficking disaster Europe has seen in 30 years, it makes sense to want to be a prostitute in Ukraine!” Ukraine is literally the worst place on the continent to be doing that right now, not that it’s really the best place to do anything other than die.

You generally have a point but

and all three of those things being assumed as the only roles a woman would play in a war is just gross

??? Cooking and first aid are normal things for volunteers to do, male or female, it’s not that she’s a woman, but women seem to mostly have the good sense to not fly halfway around the world to get blown up as soldiers like some functionally-suicidal men did, even though there are certainly women on both sides of the war in combat roles.

There are some other normal volunteer roles, e.g. sanitation is very important, but you’d surely say the same thing if people were commenting on her not pursuing that (“oh! so women should be cleaners?”). Anything beyond that, like being a mechanic or nurse or something, requires a serious level of training

Your reading comprehension isn’t great. The problem isn’t that this woman is a prostitute, it’s that it’s normalizing the framing of “these men at war need access to sex,” which if you think about it for even a few seconds should raise red flags. If it is a “need,” then it is “necessary” to a war effort that it is accounted for, and suddenly you see the implication of a military prostitution industry, the existence of which would be a threat rather than a boon to impoverished women because, for this industry to be supplied, the powers that be will be sure there’s a minimum number of people who are desperate enough to sign up or else a good enough PR covering for what is actually slavery (such as corner cases of, to pick a totally random example, some woman flying halfway around the world to prostitute herself for free).

Missing “totalitarian,” “red fash,” something or other about Tibet, and of course no food holodomor

Pick a fake number that isn’t used by Holocaust deniers

He shares a handful of views, but overwhelmingly is a psychotic cult leader and social chauvinist. You are unlikely to get anything but uniform hatred towards him here.

I can see that you took note of my commentary on word choice, but you seem to be discounting the idea of charity on the part of whoever runs this hypothetical indie media outlet (see lemmy itself) even as you accept the idea of the audience engaging in charity. Of course, there are scams like PragerU that run at a loss as propaganda outlets, but we can see that they do this by being bankrolled by billionaires.

The idea of a service being “illegitimate” when it is not trying to sell things is bizarre, since your argument seems to lead to the conclusion that “it is outside of the economic framework I have put forward” without explaining the basis for the hypothetical scam.

It’s plausible deniability so the admins don’t have a pretext to hijack the sub from them. Most of the protesting subs either explicitly take this line or leave it to subtext.