Okay, can I just derail this slightly to have a genuine conversation about what “racism” is here, for a second?

Racism is by and large when prejudice has become widespread enough that it disadvantages a group. Academically, when people research racism, they’re not worried about individual prejudices, they’re worried about collective prejudices that create additional challenges in people reaching prosperity. This is where admittedly misguided statements like “you can’t be racist against white people” come from, as you may dislike white people all you’d like, but globally and within any country in the Western sphere, they’re the ones in power.

So, that in mind, what are people trying to argue when they call it “racist” to associate Xi with Winnie the Pooh? There’s the obvious intended issue in that Pooh is yellow, and throughout history racist epithets around the colour yellow have been used to describe Chinese people. And absolutely, in those cases where they were a minority, ie a Chinese immigrant coming to North America, such language is unapologetically racist. They’re a disadvantaged “out” group, and this language is used to further other them and create a negative public perception. It’s not hard to see how that’s racist.

But we’re not talking about Chinese people as minorities in other countries. In fact, we’re not talking about Chinese people at all. We’re talking very specifically about the president-for-life of one of the most powerful nations in the world. Nothing anyone we’re speaking to can say or do anything to disadvantage him. Even if you want to argue that a given person dislikes him due to racial prejudice and nothing more (which is absolutely a shitty thing to do) there’s nothing “racist” about that prejudice, persay.

Now, I’m not so delusional as to think that the academic understanding of racism and the colloquial concept of racism are one in the same. Obviously, drawing a divide between academic racism and racial prejudices is splitting hairs outside of, well, academic study. But my concern becomes this: aren’t we diminishing the problems with genuine racism when we engage with asinine ideas like “portraying Xi as Winnie the Pooh is racist”? Large scale systematic oppression is a real widespread issue that has disadvantaged, and in some cases all but erased, many cultures all over the world. Native populations of Canada and the US, African populations abused by the colonial powers, the Ugyhurs in concentration camps in China… Those are good examples of racism. People who engage with language and attitudes that continues to perpetuate those crimes are racist.

To this day, the economic power and social mobility of these social groups are severely disadvantaged from a history of racism, and we’re going to conflate that with pictures of Winnie the Pooh because it offends one of the most powerful people in the world? I don’t buy it. This whole take is purely brain dead tankie bullshit from people who are attempting to construct a moral highground. If they were genuinely concerned with the problem of racism, it is not the hill they’d die on, and they’d at least recognize the difference in harm. But they don’t, because it’s not an honest argument to begin with; it’s just more tankie propaganda.

And a quick shout out to anyone who stuck with me long enough to read this. It’s been jostling around in my brain for a while, and I’m glad to try to finally put the scattered thoughts into words.

Okay, but, even ruled an accident, why is this guy not up for manslaughter charges? Do I grossly misunderstand what manslaughter is?

This is definitely some smoking gun tier bullshit, but even given every benefit of the doubt in the world, the negligence has to be criminal.

I’ve been rewatching Bojack Horseman, and there’s an episode where Diane convinces the state to pass common-sense gun legislation by making it “in” for women to carry guns. The eventually leads to the line, “I can’t believe this country hates women more than it loves guns,” to which the character with her replies, “really?”

I think that moment is, unfortunately, rather poignant.

While I appreciate the personal anecdote, what was the cost paid by your insurer? Being covered by private insurance is great for you, but what happens to the people without the means?

The subtext of your post is an insinuation that it isn’t as bad as others make it out to be, but it sounds like it wasn’t bad for you because you have good private insurance, and the means to obtain and manage that insurance. Not everyone is in that situation, and those who don’t have access to good private insurance, or simply make a mistake in managing their insurance, shouldn’t be forced to pay absurd fees out of debt/pocket.

This is the most deranged thread I’ve ever chosen to scroll through on here.

You can be against two genocides. Being against one genocide doesn’t make you for another. This is not a challenging moral conundrum. Anyone trying to paint this as “you either want to kill all Israeli’s, or you want to kill all of Palestine” needs some kind of social-emotional-moral help and development, at the least.

In other communities, I’d agree. In a community dedicated to exposing their lies? I think I see it as a “give them enough rope to hang themselves” situation.

Though I absolutely take your point.

Canada’s food safety regulations spits all over the American ones. When putting myself through university via the food service industry, I was shocked to learn how many hoops American companies have to jump through to meet our food safety standards.

Honestly, they get downvoted and mocked into oblivion, while simultaneously demonstrating the purpose of this community. Why ban them?

I’ve seen some incredibly stupid Tankie takes around here, but this might be the most completely dissassociated, idiotic trash I have ever seen come out of any of their mouths. It is the picture of “our heroic adventurers; their british invadwrs” meme.

“Both Imperialist genocides were bad.” “We elevated the native peoples (when we destroyed their cultures and killed anyone who resisted); you’re denying genocide.”

Anyone who reads that comment and doesn’t immediately smell the hypocritical bullshit needs help, either developing critical thinking skills, or getting away from the brainwashing they’ve consumed.

If your definition of leftism doesn’t include queer acceptance, then I’m not interested in your version of leftism.

Any version of bringing the people together to make the world better for the people cannot discriminate based on sexuality. Doing so is to create a multi-tiered citizenship and awarding privilege based on perceived merit, which is right-wing ideology.

Queer groups have been an oppressed group for most of history, which has decidedly placed them into oppressed economic classes, and the culture they developed is a result of that. To dismiss queer acceptance as “culture war,” is to position sexual identity as choice, and to ignore their history of oppression and erasure.

“Leftism” that segregates citizens by sexual orientation, or other identities and backgrounds for that matter, is fascism by another name.

They’re conflating anti-authoritarian with anti-communist because it suits their narrative.

Imagine unironically posting these comments in communities that notoriously ban people for wrong-think.

Shit like this really makes me question if they can genuinely be this stupid.

Not bothering to cover up your crimes isn’t the flex you seen to think it is.

But think about how much shareholder value they preserved!

But autopen was a problem.

I fucking hate stroads.

I’m not eager to jump from one authoritarian Imperialist nation to another.

Honestly? Starting to look like it. From one partnership with an authoritarian Imperialist empire to another, I guess.