r/countwithchickenlady • u/Content-Shopping6743 Pangolin Girl who is the #1 girl kisser. - Streak: 4 • 24d ago
Controversial Post 75761
415
u/CreativeChoroos 24d ago
For anyone curious her name is TheGodAndAnimeGirl on tiktok
184
u/Zaelynn_ 24d ago
Aaaaaand she's gorgeous 😵
-38
u/Konoruaa 23d ago
Memes are having better transitions than I ever will time to kill myself
28
u/Zaelynn_ 23d ago
Nope, you're gonna be one hot as fuck mama (or papa?). I'm sure that meme felt exactly the same way when she started babes 😘
-13
u/Konoruaa 23d ago
Nah I can't transition for at least few years and then it won't change anytging
18
u/Zaelynn_ 23d ago
Trust me, it'll change a whole lot more than you think. Starting late is nowhere near a death sentence. I started at 29, and I FINALLY like my body. It's not "perfect", but it's SO much better.
-1
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Zaelynn_ 23d ago edited 23d ago
Please talk to a professional. None of what you just said is okay, and I assure you that life can be better. I have been suicidal. I have attempted suicide. It gets better, and not by hurting yourself or others - all that did is compound things. You are deserving of love - most of all, you are deserving of loving yourself.
0
u/Konoruaa 23d ago
I am seeing a professional and I am not telling them I am trans. It never gets better if you are a sack of shit and puss that was depressed since before puberty. There is not a single part of me undeserving of hate as it was all grown with the poison that is testosterone. The only thing I deserve is the rope, but only after I leave the payment on the table first.
138
u/Any_Wasabi_5233 DougDoug turned me trans in a dream one time - Streak: 13 24d ago
“oh, she can’t really look that much different-“
holy shit what a glowup
114
u/Tlaquatlatoa Hyenagirl :3 Recreational Pisser | She/Her - Streak: 25 24d ago
She really does have the power of god and anime on her side :3
58
223
u/Kastrand liberal and proud 24d ago
why a Stalinist specifically? lmfao it's like the worst form of tankie she could've chose
83
u/HiroProtagonest King of Snow - Streak: 25 24d ago
lmfao it's like the worst form of tankie
Worshipping Stalin and accusing all evidence against him of being revisionist propaganda by his enemies is like, the baseline to be a tankie.
9
u/Kastrand liberal and proud 24d ago
i've met tankies who at least realize communism is half pipe dream, half utopia, so i respect the commitment to realism. i'd love to be a commie if it didn't always end up turning into labor camp simulator.
11
u/A_Truthspeaker 24d ago
That's quite literally why I'm an anarchist.
1
u/Sensitive-Medium7077 23d ago
Well you guys are in luck because I highly doubt either of your conceptions of a “labor camp simulator” are anything close to the reality of most historical socialist projects. How did you come to the conclusion that attempts at communism always end up that way?
9
u/A_Truthspeaker 23d ago
They don't have to always end up that way. But in Leninist ideologies you pretty much always rely on a (in one form or another) benevolent dictatorship. Centralising power into the hands of a few people, only to eventually have these people or positions voluntarily give up their power, while they -due to their power- have the ability to cement exactly that power, is an inherently flawed system.
I'm not saying it can never work, but it's extremely risky and will probably more often than not lead to a modern day China or Stalin-USSR situation.
5
u/Dreferex 23d ago
Because they always do? Not to mention that in any communist transition you will have to have a strong, even near authoritarian government, and the people who will want to run it will almost certainly try to turn it into Soviet Union.
172
u/HOOTYni 24d ago
I never understood how any communist can in any way idolice stalin, he destroyed the idea of succesful communist goverments for large parts of the west as well as all slavic countries for the coming future leading the current bullshit capitalist hellscape we live in now. Lenin literaly wanted anyone other than him as the next ussr leader. Worst of all most of the shit attributet to communisem now is due to his utter megalomania and complete mismanagment of all countries under ussr control
61
u/F2d24 24d ago
To be fair lenin himself also was quite the ass
24
u/Fancy_Chips 23d ago
Most of the Commies were insane. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Kims, Castro, Pol Pot. Straight loony. Never understood why talkies don't thirst over Hornet Chi Minh or Tito. I mean they do but not in larger numbers.
2
-1
u/No_Peach6683 23d ago
Honestly wondering why more folks aren’t into official non-democratic technocracy or some flavor of “dual voting” where the average person can only vote on local stuff while national stuff and the president is appointed by senior bureaucrats etc, or more esoteric ideologies that aren’t leftist or right. Maybe a meritocratic English-speaking world state with national borders replaced with watershed basins
5
u/Fancy_Chips 23d ago
Its easier to point to systems that made an impact. Republicanism, Communism, Fascism are all big ideologies that have been tested and can be argued to be successful (even when they arent).
Consider the tankie, since theyre the example here. Do you think Stalinists sit down and read a diverse set of literature? Or do they point to the industrialization of the USSR and say "look! It works!"? I'd wager the latter over the former. If you did have a diverse set of literature youd probably have some extra dashes and caveats in your ideology.
1
u/No_Peach6683 23d ago
Also universalist bureaucratic absolutist monarchy like ancient Egypt or China, if you go really far back, or just the Incans or Mongols for the Midieval era. The Incan example had some redistributionist elements where members of an ayllu were supposed to aid each other
→ More replies (6)9
2
u/Nota_robot_i_swear_ 23d ago
simple, the fact that a strongman is an alluring idea to some, and it could be viewed from a certain angle that the stalinist era was the golden age of the ussr, and it was all downhill from there
2
u/Beegrene 23d ago
Same reason folks simp for right-wing authoritarians. They want big strong leader man to make all the problems go away.
-12
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
22
u/RevolutionaryKey1974 23d ago
This is a really bizarre thing to say when what Stalin wrote speaks far less than the things he did - Stalinism in the USSR cost untold millions of lives and his policy was one that destroyed entire swathes of the cultures that were under the power of the USSR. Stalinism follows - I’m not sure why one would need to appreciate his literature to come to the conclusion that he is one of history’s greatest monsters and isn’t worth idolising, nor his works.
-1
u/Sensitive-Medium7077 23d ago
My point is if you read from the man himself it might make you question this slanderous bullshit you’ve clearly internalized. If you read Mein Kampf from Hitler it lines up with the common perception of him exactly. If you read something like Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question it really calls into question his capacity to “destroy entire swathes of cultures” with his ideology, let alone the other claims. He directly called out Zionism even back then in 1913. People like Paul Robeson went on record saying the USSR was the first place he was treated like a full human being and not just a black man (meanwhile Jim Crow laws were still in full effect in the US).
2
u/RevolutionaryKey1974 23d ago edited 23d ago
You’re really going to bring up his criticisms of Zionism like he didn’t target Jewish doctors and scientists in the USSR and had well documented purges and piles upon piles of gulags which were well attested, and to which provably high amounts of people were sent to die horribly?
Come the actual fuck on, his writing can be whatever he wants it to be, but the guy as it stands was in direct control of the country, ruled it with an iron fist, and murdered millions. You’re not going to trutherise your way out of the horrendous shit he did by cherry picking examples of people who were less discriminated against in the USSR.
This isn’t me lionising the US btw, I wouldn’t wanted to have been any kind of person of colour in that country during Stalin’s rule either.
-1
u/Sensitive-Medium7077 23d ago
Do you have a source for targeting Jewish doctors and scientists? People by and large not sent to die horribly in the gulag and the overwhelming majority were not even in there for political crimes. I have no idea what you’re imagining it was but it was similar to a regular prison. Look:
> We have heard much about the ruthless Reds, beginning with the reign of terror and repression perpetrated during the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin (1929-1953). Estimates of those who perished under Stalin’s rule—based principally on speculations by writers who never reveal how they arrive at such figures—vary wildly. Thus, Roy Medvedev puts Stalin’s victims at 5 to 7 million; Robert Conquest decided on 7 to 8 million; Olga Shatunovskaia claims 19,8 million just for the 1935-40 period; Stephen Cohen says 9 million by 1939, with 3 million executed or dying from mistreatment during the 1936-39 period; and Arthur Koestler tells us it was 20 to 25 million. More recently, William Rusher, of the Claremont Institute, refers to the ‘Too million people wantonly murdered by Communist dictators since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917” {Oakland Tribuney \ 122196) and Richard Lourie blames the Stalin era for “the slaughter of millions” {New York TimeSy 8/4/96).
[…]
> To be sure, crimes of state were committed in communist countries and many political prisoners were unjustly interned and even murdered. But the inflated numbers offered by cold-war scholars serve neither historical truth nor the cause of justice but merely help to reinforce a knee-jerk fear and loathing of those terrible Reds.
In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish welldocumented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976.[…]
> Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies. Despite harsh conditions, the great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records.^ Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as “the largest system of death camps in modern history.”
[…]
> Should all gulag inmates be considered innocent victims of Red repression? Contrary to what we have been led to believe, those arrested for political crimes (“counterrevolutionary offenses”) num¬ bered from 12 to 33 percent of the prison population, varying from year to year. The vast majority of inmates were charged with nonpo¬ litical offenses: murder, assault, theft, banditry, smuggling, swindling, and other violations punishable in any society.
Total executions from 1921 to 1953, a thirty-three year span inclusive, were 799,455. No breakdown of this figure was provided by the researchers. It includes those who were guilty of nonpolitical capital crimes, as well as those who collaborated in the Western capitalist invasion and subsequent White Guard Army atrocities. It also includes some of the considerable numbers who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and probably German SS prisoners. In any case, the killings of political opponents were not in the mil¬ lions or tens of millions—which is not to say that the actual number was either inconsequential or justifiable.2
u/RevolutionaryKey1974 23d ago
Stalin literally died because of his purge brought on by ‘the Doctor’s plot’. this is hardly a secret
-1
u/Sensitive-Medium7077 23d ago
I hadn’t heard of this one. Seems to be more slander.
2
u/RevolutionaryKey1974 23d ago
You hadn’t heard of what is widely considered to be one of the major reasons why Stalin never recovered from the medical debacle that lead to his death and you’re claiming it’s a slander based on one link you cherry picked instead of the extremely broad ocean of historical documentation that says it’s not?
Huge surprise that a supporter of Stalin didn’t know how the guy fucking died but okay.
→ More replies (0)10
u/Micro666ham 23d ago
I think I care more for the millions dead from Stalin than any literature he wrote.
1
u/Elu_Moon 23d ago
We'll someday find Stalin x Trotsky self-insert yaoi somewhere. That's all that matters.
1
u/Sensitive-Medium7077 23d ago
> We have heard much about the ruthless Reds, beginning with the reign of terror and repression perpetrated during the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin (1929-1953). Estimates of those who perished under Stalin’s rule—based principally on speculations by writers who never reveal how they arrive at such figures—vary wildly. Thus, Roy Medvedev puts Stalin’s victims at 5 to 7 million; Robert Conquest decided on 7 to 8 million; Olga Shatunovskaia claims 19,8 million just for the 1935-40 period; Stephen Cohen says 9 million by 1939, with 3 million executed or dying from mistreatment during the 1936-39 period; and Arthur Koestler tells us it was 20 to 25 million. More recently, William Rusher, of the Claremont Institute, refers to the ‘Too million people wantonly murdered by Communist dictators since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917” {Oakland Tribuney \ 122196) and Richard Lourie blames the Stalin era for “the slaughter of millions” {New York TimeSy 8/4/96).
[…]
> To be sure, crimes of state were committed in communist countries and many political prisoners were unjustly interned and even murdered. But the inflated numbers offered by cold-war scholars serve neither historical truth nor the cause of justice but merely help to reinforce a knee-jerk fear and loathing of those terrible Reds.
In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish welldocumented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976.[…]
> Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies. Despite harsh conditions, the great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records.^ Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as “the largest system of death camps in modern history.”
[…]
> Should all gulag inmates be considered innocent victims of Red repression? Contrary to what we have been led to believe, those arrested for political crimes (“counterrevolutionary offenses”) num¬ bered from 12 to 33 percent of the prison population, varying from year to year. The vast majority of inmates were charged with nonpo¬ litical offenses: murder, assault, theft, banditry, smuggling, swindling, and other violations punishable in any society.
Total executions from 1921 to 1953, a thirty-three year span inclusive, were 799,455. No breakdown of this figure was provided by the researchers. It includes those who were guilty of nonpolitical capital crimes, as well as those who collaborated in the Western capitalist invasion and subsequent White Guard Army atrocities. It also includes some of the considerable numbers who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and probably German SS prisoners. In any case, the killings of political opponents were not in the mil¬ lions or tens of millions—which is not to say that the actual number was either inconsequential or justifiable.1
u/Micro666ham 23d ago
The points made are correct, but the conclusion doesn't make sense. The numbers named at the beginning weren't just political executions but all excess mortality due to Stalin's policies and actions. For example, the Soviet famine of 1930–1933, including the Ukrainian Holodomor and Kazakh Asharshylyk, often considered a genocide, killed 5-8 million by itself, caused by dekulakization and other policies that proved disastrous.
Furthermore, the point given that the Gulag population was 2,022,976 was only the population at one time: throughout its history ~18 million passed through the Gulags, with 1.5 to 1.7 million dying from overwork, disease, starvation, and other fatal conditions.
Lastly, alongside the 799,000 political executions, 400,000 died in the forced deportations of entire ethnic populations (such as Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, and Poles).
1
u/Sensitive-Medium7077 23d ago
I adamantly deny the Holodomor was a genocide given that basically every single historian who’s ever looked into it concluded it was criminal negligence at worst. Of course millions of people died, but it’s also important to recognize that there were constant big famines under the tsar and the Soviet Union reduced the frequency tremendously. But it other than that I broadly agree with what you’re saying. I’m not claiming the Soviet Union was a utopia or that it was never responsible for massive tragedies. But it was a big step up from even modern American society and it really makes no sense to me that it’s seen in same category as Nazi Germany.
It gave women the right to vote before the US did federally, women had a year of free maternity leave, it had free education through college and free healthcare, rent was the equivalent of maybe $50 a month, paid employment was guaranteed by law, groceries were subsidized, racial minorities (despite the deportations) did in fact have constitutional rights and protections and there is evidence that this was widely enforced (See Paul Robeson’s statements or Harry Haywood’s biography). Harry Haywood was able to get a free university education there while Jim Crow laws were still in effect in the US.
And to hammer the point home about how it was qualitatively different than Nazi Germany, look at this speech by Soviet Politician Andrey Vyshinsky given to the UN about the Draft Declaration of Human Rights:
> We consider it unacceptable to disseminate the so-called “ideas” of fascism, because we know from experience — for which we have paid with millions of lives of our children, our brothers, our fathers, our sisters, our mothers, our daughters. We know this from experience that cost our people torrents of blood, shed upon our land in the years of the Second World War.
> We all know very well what this so-called freedom to disseminate fascist “ideas” led to, and we do not wish and will not permit a repetition of this experience. We will not allow the idea of freedom to be perverted by calmly contemplating how fascist propaganda will once again unfold — propaganda that has already now raised its head and will raise it higher when it sees this declaration, in which the right of free dissemination of all kinds of ideas (and hence, of fascist “ideas” as well) is proclaimed. No. We must stifle at the root this terrible propaganda of fascism, which attempted to drown peace-loving, democratic countries in blood. We will not be swayed from our position by demagogic cries and whining that human freedom, human rights, supposedly cannot be limited. No — one can, if this freedom is used to the detriment of the public good, the interests of the people.
> One cannot permit people with burning torches to run freely through the streets of cities, preparing to set fire to our homes and destroy us. We do not recognise such freedom, and we cannot accept that our declaration, on behalf of the United Nations, should proclaim such freedom – to disseminate the ideas of Hitler and Goebbels.I highly encourage you to at least look at communist sources on this topic and try to recognize both the legitimate good and legitimate bad aspects of the Soviet Union.
1
u/Micro666ham 22d ago
The Holodomor genocide question is still debated, and to say that EVERY single historian that's ever 'looked into it' says it isn't is just factually incorrect and I think you know that; it is still debated.
But honestly I think its just semantics. Like what defines destroying a group? What defines a group? Destroying? What is necessary for intent? Theres a reason there's only around 3-6 genocides that people can widely agree on (and even those like with the Armenian genocide or even the Holocaust have deniers somehow) - its possibly one of the most emotionally charged terms in all politics and law after all.
3
2
u/Elu_Moon 23d ago
Considering that neither of them wrote anything worth reading that isn't superseded by their actions... why should we? I don't need to read Mein Kampf to shit on Hitler.
-48
u/CollectibleHam 24d ago
He beat Hitler and didn't let the Americans take over all of Europe, that's kind of a big deal imho.
39
u/F2d24 24d ago
He didnt beat hitler. The soviet people did with the help of the allies and the vast lend lease programm.
He didnt save half of europe from the americans he forced half of europe to live under corrupt authoritarian dictatorships that were so bad they had to build a wall to prevent them from fleeing and use tanks to crack down on protests demanding freedom while he sent millions of his own people to work and die in labour camps in siberia
5
u/Elu_Moon 23d ago
Today, we can also look at post-USSR countries and see that they're poorer, less tolerant, and generally more conservative (which usually equates to being more shitty) than the western counterparts.
I'd know, I live in the center of it, Russia.
You can practically see that the further one was from Russia, the better off one was.
19
17
u/RadicalSoda_ 24d ago
God forbid we personally reconstruct Europe twice as long as we ask for a little money from it
21
u/Kastrand liberal and proud 24d ago
however bad you think america is, there are many countries that are worse. and america wasn't going to "take over" europe lmfao
4
6
u/not_a_bot_494 23d ago
He helped Hitler and then was backstabbed. I don't think he should get any credit for that.
2
1
u/Some_Macaron_9170 23d ago
No he's not, endure is a better word, and no, he's not all even responsible for that achievement, saying so, feels like disrespecting every soldier and civilians, foreigners or not, who died and to some, who actually contribute to the fact their country endure an invasion. Also forgot the lend lease, my god why you people just ignore that part, like, people like you didn't or hardly acknowledge that fact, or even respect or mention it, Christ, at least do mention it.
-26
u/Kastrand liberal and proud 24d ago
in capitalisms defense, we've only really seen how bad it can get in the last half century, give or take a decade or two. Stalin did it in what, 2 decades?
7
u/MoorAlAgo 24d ago
we've only really seen how bad it can get in the last half century
Who's this "we" that only experienced the worst of capitalism in the last half century?
→ More replies (4)2
u/deadlydakotaraptor 23d ago edited 23d ago
Only if you ignore stuff like all the child workers in the 1800’s/early 1900’s, no safety checks on human fingers lost in meatpacking plants (1906), factory’s that locked the doors to keep workers from taking a break that prevented escape during fires (1911), or miner camps during strikes being straight up machine gunned (1914). (And this is only inside America itself) Capitalism showed how bad it could be long before your chosen date.
1
u/HOOTYni 24d ago
As the saying goes communism is a good idea done by bad people, capitalism is a good idea if you're already rich enough to not care
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (10)1
u/yuligan 23d ago
How was Capitalism in those same 2 decades? I hear it wasn't great in Germany.
1
u/Kastrand liberal and proud 23d ago
it's really interesting how you choose to blame that on capitalism and not the fascist authoritarian who co-opted pseudo-socialist talking points to win over the working class.
→ More replies (1)50
u/Anoobis100percent 24d ago
Apparently, the stalinist part is a lie. She's probably just a normal leftist
2
1
u/Queen-Pomnikki MtF🏳️⚧️/19🇸🇪/Aro-gyno-pan🏳️🌈/pre-transtion 23d ago
Stalinism does not mean idolising stalin. You can hate stalin and his action but still admire or consider the positive and negative of a system and or ideology.
I hate him BTW. but I don't think we should separate the ones we don't agree with when we have a greater chance of victory if we stay united
1
u/ThE_reAl__ 23d ago
I see a lot of historians argue it wasnt seen as a widespread issue so they (new leaders such as lenin) didn't bother putting it in earlier into the constitution, not that they agreed with the type of behavior queers do. Because this is an ultra right wing authoritarian state where if you want personal freedoms you are against the union (empire).
76
24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
32
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 24d ago
Nothing glorious about Stalinism
35
u/Elu_Moon 23d ago
This subreddit seems to have a problem where too many people think stalinism was/is a good idea.
STALIN WOULD'VE FUCKING KILLED YOU ALL!
12
u/snargeII 23d ago edited 23d ago
Everyone ive seen so far had been thank god tgirl but no proof of stalin
Edit: spelling
14
25
20
u/Ravenqueer077 Very homosexual T-girl 23d ago
Why TF would anyone like Stalin he's literally a fucking traitor to the revolution
→ More replies (3)
54
6
16
29
u/ukie-witch-06 24d ago
Look, i do want to say, being an LGBT stalinist is a bit suicidal. I mean, Stalin would have had you against the wall, maybe have you raped forst, possibly...
21
→ More replies (9)1
34
u/Chessdaddy_ 24d ago
Are we really celebrating Stalin in 2026
-4
u/Queen-Pomnikki MtF🏳️⚧️/19🇸🇪/Aro-gyno-pan🏳️🌈/pre-transtion 23d ago
What is it about stalinism that means celebrate Stalin. I hate him. But can still recognised that his ideology is not him.
6
u/Chessdaddy_ 23d ago
Everything about Stalinism celebrates him. It equates loyalty to Stalin with loyalty to the state and to communism. Things such as Stalins 70th birthday celebrations and the renaming of volograd
1
u/Beegrene 23d ago
Insofar as the ideology is separate from the man himself (not at all), the ideology is awful too.
1
u/Queen-Pomnikki MtF🏳️⚧️/19🇸🇪/Aro-gyno-pan🏳️🌈/pre-transtion 23d ago
That is a valid critique. But the person who said the first comment in this thread, questoid if we celebrate stalin not the ideology.
8
u/SkubEnjoyer 24d ago
Waow
-7
2
u/Father_Chewy_Louis Elektra She/Her 23d ago
The "I'm in me mum's car vroom vroom!" kid is a trans man!
4
8
u/Live_Bug_7060 23d ago
Why are the people having a collective psychosis on communism in these comments?...I just saw a comment making up a scenario where that girl gets rape by Stalin, what the fuck
2
2
u/EmptyMirror5653 23d ago
It's legitimately unsettling where liberal's minds go when they encounter people who don't believe as they do. And whenever they fanrasize about violence being done to their political enemies, they hide their relishing of it behind the plausible deniability of "someone would do that to you"
It's the exact same thing as "oh you're queer and you support the colonized people in Gaza? You know they'd eat your flesh, right?"
2
2
2
1
1
1
u/Lominloce The dragonstorms flew away with the starwinds... 23d ago
This is like if someone was trans and MAGA 🤮
-1
u/SovietFemboy Still cis tho 24d ago
She just like me fr
4
u/SovietFemboy Still cis tho 23d ago
I should clarify that I’m not actually a Stalinist, I was just trying to make a joke
-20
u/chandeluria 24d ago
For the weirdos in the thread quibbling over their uninformed personal definitions of communist terminology;
Stalinism isnt even a real ideology. It does not refer to an ideology. Stalinism as an adjective refers to the policies and historical acts of the Soviet Union's government under Stalin's premiership. There is no such thing as a modern Stalinist, the concept is a nonstarter. He did not nor did he claim to have an ideologically distinct worldview from Lenin. He was a Marxist-Leninist. While this was a term coined by him, the fundamental underlying premises he asserted with this term are in no way different from those asserted by Lenin.
If you have a problem with Marxism-Leninism thats fine (no, it isnt, you are wrong, but thats your prerogative), if you have a problem with marxist-leninists this is also fine (they are objectively annoying regardless of the validity of MLism)
But most of all, all of this is immaterial to the meme in question. Its a funny remember this person post. Petulantly quibbling over whether or not this woman is a Stalinist is both banal and pointless.
13
0
u/Live_Bug_7060 23d ago
Holy fuck they're downvoting you?! Lmao
8
u/Dreferex 23d ago
I mean, they are both wrong and by proxy defend one of the most fucked up empires in human history, one which fell within the living memory. Desn't take a genius to guess why.
5
u/Live_Bug_7060 23d ago
Not everyone is an anti communist capitalist
5
u/Dreferex 23d ago
Doesn't change the fact that Stalinism exists and ML is just a way to introduce red fascism.
4
u/Live_Bug_7060 23d ago
Red fascism 😭
7
u/Dreferex 23d ago
A party wins the elections, after which it seizes power to ensure only it can run again, seizes the means of production and represses the enemies of state.
That is what ML does and is also nearly verbatim what the NSDAP did. Of course the goals were differen't but they had very similar results: genocides.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Live_Bug_7060 23d ago
That's the most semplistic and anti-historical view of ML, you haven't studied the specific history of that time and haven't read the books that the political ideology stands on. Also the nazi never seized the means of productions, they were in bad with the bourgeoisies same as the fascist. You're falling for propaganda a century old. I can recommend a couple of books if you want, both that I've read in private and studied in my university.
Btw I'm not an othodox ML, you're just wrong
4
u/Dreferex 23d ago
That is just the wikipedia definition of the how they mean to seize the power. It is what happened in Russia, China and Korea. And Nazis did nationalize a shit ton of industries, and just as Stalin and Soviets they then either "redistributed" the factories among their allies who by complete coincidence already owned others and made them work to "the benefit of the state" or like Stalin appointed political allies or subordinates at management positions, by which, through unknown means, they lived lifes oddly similar to western factory owners. Were the Fascists in bed with industrialists? Yes. The communists just replaced the industrialists with their own people and continued to exploit the workers in the name of "proletariat".
The truth is that Stalinism is just red fascism with Marxist asthetic. Unless you want to argue ideals, but then we might as well let ancaps and other utopian schizos talk.
5
u/Live_Bug_7060 23d ago
Can you tell me where you studied history? Like, the books, the specific titles.
→ More replies (0)1
u/chandeluria 23d ago
If you arent getting paid rn you should definitely see if the CIA is willing to compensate you bc youre killing it
7
u/Dreferex 23d ago
I don't need to be paid to fight a system where a group of people has almost unlimited power to regulate who can say what, take what they want and brand anyone as enemies. Marxism leninism led to the oppression of eastern Europe by Moscow regime and left a clear divide in standard of living. The fact that you defend an ideology that inevitably leads to the rise of monsters like Stalin says more about whether you care about others or just want to be able to say "we should kill...".
0
3
u/chandeluria 23d ago
I mean judging by the rest of the comment section are you really surprised lol
2
-2
-23
u/UwU-Sandwich 24d ago edited 24d ago
i dont think i get the general mindset on this sub. i think today alone i saw several posts complaining about "agab language existing" (as in, even it literally just existing at all is already bad), but then people here also love to go "tgirl this" and "tgirl that".
whats wrong with calling a girl a girl
edit: also what's wrong with asking a simple question? did I say anything that's bad or could be misunderstood? because I genuinely don't see it, please someone do tell me
14
u/Content-Shopping6743 Pangolin Girl who is the #1 girl kisser. - Streak: 4 24d ago
I didn't make the twitter post, don't yell at me!
0
u/UwU-Sandwich 24d ago
where the heck did you get yelling from??
anyway, sorry if it came across targeted at you OP, I was talking about the subreddit in general. tbh what prompted me to ask about this was seeing someone else in the comments under this post doing it.
3
u/Bragi01 24d ago
I'd assume it's a case of who is using it and what they mean by it. Like this tweet just meant it as a shorting of trans girl, but if you find it on an organe and black video hosting site it's being used as a not so friendly term. Also the internet just tends to hate nuance. AGAB isn't necessarily bad, it's just that the type of person to make a post complaining about it are they same type of people that give positive replies to the poster and then it creates a loop. AGAB gets bad when it's used in a bad way, like using it to miss gender someone. Where as if it's in the right settings it might not be as bad depending on the person who is being referred to.
6
u/ChiakiSimp3842 Unlovable Enby Robot 24d ago
You can just say PornHub you know. This isn't YouTube or TikTok
3
2
u/UwU-Sandwich 24d ago
well I get that it just means trans girl, but the "trans" in that sentence is pretty unnecessary
and I'd think that AGAB isn't necessarily bad, but that's why I put emphasis on seeing posts saying it is necessarily bad
it just seemed kinda weird to me seeing posts getting upvotes that say "specifying agab is inherently bad" AND seeing people use language that unnecessarily points out people are trans, within like 20 minutes of each other.
those seem like opposing views/mannerisms at surface level. that's why I felt the need to ask about it
0
u/Yuzu-Adagio 23d ago
The gripe with the AGAB stuff is it's centering the wrong gender. There are (imo) legit reasons to refer to somebody that way, but a lot of the time it's just kinda used as woke-flavored misgendering, particularly against non-binary people. I'm a trans woman, and I'm AMAB, but only one of those terms really seems like it's coming from a place of thinking of me as a woman.
As for "tgirl," I didn't know about the porn application until two comments ago, so I can't help you there. It seems better than a lot of things trans women get called in the sex work world, though.
1
u/UwU-Sandwich 23d ago
that... doesn't answer the question tho? why do (some of) you want the trans in "trans girl" specifically pointed out? "it's not as bad as other things you might call someone" is hardly a reason
also I never brought up porn so I don't know why you're addressing me telling me you can't help me there
2
u/Yuzu-Adagio 23d ago
I'm not sure people actively want it specifically pointed out in most cases, just it's not a bad thing (to most of us).
I was trying to help you with the part I knew about (AGAB), while admitting the part I didn't know about (tgirl). Sorry it bothered you, I guess.
1
u/Prestigious-Team3327 23d ago
Yeah, I get your comment and don't know why it doesn't just say "is a (Stalinist) girl"
515
u/[deleted] 24d ago
[removed] — view removed comment