• 8 Posts
  • 187 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2023
  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.world•Oh Noes!!English
    6·
    11 hours ago

    Edit: Because I’m genuinely loving the downvotes

    First off, you had 5 down votes, which makes it obvious you’re trolling.

    But for those five it’s likely:

    It’s because you’re trying to use semantics to “dunk” on an entire country, and it’s not even original, and still not even right.

    It would be correct to phrase it:

    The first pope from the United States of America

    But pretty much every country has a long name that’s shortened down to one identifiable word.

    Its very hard to believe anyone would hear:

    The first American pope

    And genuinely believe that includes anyone born anywhere on the continents of North or South America.

    99.99% of the time, it’s someone trying to troll Americans, it’s not as clever as you think. And immediately complaining about a handful of downvotes makes it incredibly transparent.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.world•Oh Noes!!English
    11·
    11 hours ago

    The Communist Manifesto spends time talking about how compatible early Christian teachings are with Marx’s goals.

    I mean:

    From each according to his ability, to each depending on his need

    Is literally just taken from the Bible:

    Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

    But the Romans already had it:

    If x = a disadvantage, and y = action to redress that disadvantage, the principle of solidarity is: if any member of a group acquires x, each member has a duty to perform y (if they can assist). All we then need to add, to get to the fundamental principle of developed communism, is to assume that non-satisfaction of a need is a disadvantage. The corresponding principle of solidarity in respect of need says: if any member of society has an unsatisfied need, each member has a duty to produce its object (if they can). But that is precisely what the principle ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs!’ dictates. In Marx’s vision, the basic principle of developed communism is a principle of solidarity in respect of need.

    Capitalism in any form is an incredibly recent development, and the reason European colonialism was so successful is they made “deals” with people who had no idea what scale things were working on.

    It’s like if a friend’s older brother ever “taught” you how to throw dice, by the time you get a grip on the rules, you’ve lost all your money and dude’s dipped out of the house.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.world•Oh Noes!!English
    6·
    11 hours ago

    To be fair a lot of the quotes attributed to Marx were just common phrases he rephrased, or a giant wall of text reduced by someone else to a memorable quote stripped of all context:

    The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

    Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

    The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people#Full_quotation_and_history

    And it came from an unpublished response to someone else’s work. After he was dead his follower pared all of that down to:

    Religion is the opium of the masses

    And let everyone who heard it, believe it meant whatever they think it means.

    Always be wary of authoritarians that are given credit for “speaking plainly” but aren’t actually saying anything. Being vague and letting the person interpret it however they want us basic grifting. All that matters is you’re gaining their confidence.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.world•Pope Francis was a great Christian pastorEnglish
    12·
    15 days ago

    Hey, what do I know?

    I thought growing up in a place that’s voted >90% Republican (with the exception of 08 Obama) populated exclusively by different flavors of Christians would give me unique insight into how much the Republican base would care the wrong title was used.

    Which is not at all because everyone uses their own title because it’s confusing as fuck and no one has ever given a single fuck.

    But apparently I was wrong, because it’s obviously not people down voting what they don’t want to hear, that would never happen.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•*Permanently Deleted*English
    26·
    18 days ago

    It’s kind of bad…

    A 20 year old and someone about to graduate is one thing.

    But she’s got another year after this year still.

    It might be legal depending on state due to Romeo and Juliet laws, but it’s still creepy to be 20 years old and picking up girls (literal, non adult girls) on the internet.

    Also they’re “just friends” but he can’t stop thinking of more?

    It’s fucking creepy, even if OP “just” continues grooming her till she’s 18