Anonymous interviews are part of journalism.

Do you condemn the ongoing US genocide of Italians? I, as an anonymous source living in the US, witnessed a bunch of soldiers rounding up people and demanding to know if any of them were Italian and anybody who raised their hand was executed by drawn and quartering.

If you don’t accept that this is happening based on my testimony, you’re a genocide supporter. Why do you hate Italians?

Serious answer:

Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimizes the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists.

-“No Compromises?” Lenin.

In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.

There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.

“Marx and Engles weren’t leftists” ok.

I helped to get them elected but they still lost. What about that are you confused about?

Makes more sense when you look at it from the perspective of class.

Kiseido Go Server (KGS)

If KGS’s UI looks like it hasn’t been updated in 20 years, that’s because it’s already perfect. There’s no ads, it’s purely functional, it does exactly what it needs to do and nothing more. If you click on “KGS Plus” you have the option to spend money on lectures given by human pros. Otherwise it’s completely free, and it’s still an active go server that’s been around forever.

Your reading comprehension needs work.

What?

Go watch Dr. Strangelove.

its own little transphobic bubble with lemmygrad and hexbear.

Lmao

The world bank? My person they are quoting the Chinese propaganda.

I see. So The World Bank is also in on the communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

The west had lots of stuff after ww2, they got more cheaper stuff when they offshored it to China that’s the coherent argument

“You only made a bunch of money because you produced stuff people wanted to buy” is not the own you think it is.

Me, I’m not on anybody’s payroll. But I’m trying to be. Once I build up my modlog enough as a freelancer, the plan is to print it out and mail it to the nearest Chinese embassy so I can finally quit my day job.

800 million people out of poverty is a stretch but if you wanted to make that claim

Yeah, where do these stupid tankies get these numbers anyway? I’m sure China says they lifted 800 million kajillion people out of poverty or whatever, but let’s see what a western source like, say, The World Bank has to say about it.

it’s because the west spent so much money to get goods from China.

I swear these arguments get worse every day. You could just as easily say that the only reason the West has so much stuff is because China made it for them for cheap.

Wait, that’s actually a much more coherent argument lol.

I blocked the comm (as I do any that ban me) but this should be the link to it.

It started off in a completely unrelated discussion, where someone recognized my username and accused me of “supporting genocide of Uighurs,” which is false. I don’t think anyone should start genociding them or anyone else, and have never said anything like that. What I have said before is that I don’t believe claims without evidence, even if following proper due diligence in investigating claims regarding genocide cause people to baselessly scream that I “support genocide.”

So a mod responded by doing what libs do, typing it into Google and picking a handful of headlines that sounded like they support their case and posting them without reading. At that point, I simply asked the mod how many times the name Adrian Zenz was mentioned in his links and whether he considered him a reliable source or not. In lieu of responding, he banned me.

The answer was that his name was referenced 18 times. All of the sources I was provided with depended on this one witness’s testimony, and I’ve cross-examined more credible parrots.

Like, I didn’t even come to that thread to discuss it, nor did I comment on whether the claims were true or not. In response to someone who just had it out for me and was accusing me of bullshit, I defended my position saying I don’t believe claims without evidence and haven’t seen credible evidence.

Frankly, I think the mod (Jordunlund, I believe) realized they couldn’t give a rational response so they banned me instead. Tbh, it’s a ban I wear with pride. A perfect demonstration of liberal anti-intellectualism, of how they’re actively hostile to fact-checking and rationality, perhaps 10% less so than chuds are. No one who repeats the claims in question ever actually bothered to trace the sources to see whether they’re backed by anything, and immediately shut down anyone who does.

I was banned from [email protected] simply for asking for evidence for claims made about China.

Court rules laws could hypothetically exist.

The person I helped elect lost.

Court rules laws exists.

What gets me is that the side pearl-clutching over the White House is arguably more correct than the side pearl-clutching over the demolition company. But, like, how are those the two sides lmao

Lib discourse is so wild.

Let’s be clear: taking action like boycotts or whatever against companies collaborating with fascists is 100% appropriate and valid. But there’s so many companies that are complicit in much worse ways than bulldozing the White House. Why should I even give a shit about the White House? How about instead we pressure corporations that are involved in manufacturing weapons and bombs for the regime? Or companies that provide it with data, surveillance, and technical support? You know, the companies that give the admistration material power over people?

By all means, knock yourself out doing this, I’m just confused why everyone is so invested in the White House. But if I had to guess, I’d say it’s because it’s a way of reaffirming loyalty to the state while criticizing it, making the criticism safely toothless. Me, I’d just say that all he did was save us the trouble of knocking it down ourselves.

I’m convinced some chud staffer made this entire thing just to slip in this frame as a Warhammer reference.