Tankies are left?
If you believe in the horseshoe theory they aren’t. I believe in the horseshoe theory
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies. The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment. The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external. We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
I appreciate your point of view, but from my interactions here, that’s not my experience.
To be clear I am not trying to argue with you here I’m just curious what you think.
What part of what I said have you found to be untrue? What sort of interactions led you to this conclusion?
I think, it needs to be clarified, that not everything you said I would say is “untrue”, and I want to thank you for approaching this conversation constructively. I think we agree on many points, e.g. housing is a human right, as is access to food, Healthcare, water, etc.
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies.
I can’t speak to that point, so I will defer to you.
The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment.
I do know that fascism needs an enemy in order to function, but, from my interactions with various people who claim to be communist, they are just as happy to view anyone who dissent with their views as a sheep, or, an enemy to their cause. For example, we both agree that Israel is committing genocide, we both agree that, at the very least, Israel is certainly on its way to doing the same in Lebanon. We both agree that what the US did in Iran, and Vensuela is inexcusable (keeping it recent). Now when another country, russia, does something similar to ukraine, and, it’s called out, well now im a shit lib who is pro Imperialism and the enemy of what is “communism”
The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
If you mean communism, and not whatever russia and China are, then yes, no argument here.
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external.
I think liberals, generally are ok with it, as you said, externally, there was a lot of liberal support for the Iraq bullshit.
We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
Yes, boiled down, that is very unfortunately the case, and from an idealistic point of view, we need to collectively move past that stupidity.
Not ignoring you, but I want to give you a proper reply, not on my phone, so I need to get on a computer, ill write you back :)
No worries, take your time
With the slight clarification that communists will redifine oppressors at their will, making them effectively the same in practice.
-
You are a worker that doesn’t support the movement? Class traitor, gulag.
-
You made a joke about dear leader? Traitor, gulag.
-
You would like free elections? Foreign agent, gulag.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
Yes, holodomor is western propaganda.
Yes actually, and like all the best propaganda it’s partially true. Famine happened, people died, both verifiable facts. The extent is drastically exaggerated by western sources, allegations that it was an intentional act of genocide are baseless and hilariously hypocritical coming from the US & friends.
…no
-
I certainly reassessed.
Hey, horseshoes aren’t a theory, they’re custom cut and nailed in place…
Yes, but horseshoes invented the theory
Crabs truly are talented.
Sir Alex horseshoe Who was, in fact a horseshoe
Based
yes
No.
Yes, we support the movements that have brought the most significant development of worker rights, welfare state and anti-imperialism.
Communists are left, yes.
They’re really not.
On what planet are communists not left-wing?
This one.
By whose standards? Communism is pretty definitionally left wing.
Somehow this turned into a political argument instead of people just saying “based”
Based
I hate this left/right shit. There’s only conservatives and everyone else.
And the “conservatives” are liberal as hell. The only thing they “conserve” is value for the ultra rich and some cherry-picked Biblical social order. Restrictions on capitalism? Let freedom ring.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, you have a large population of liberals who believe “This far left and no further” is a policy they’re willing to see others kill and die for.
We’ve got a bloc of political consultants who exist to infiltrate and undermine civil movements, a media sphere that propagates all sorts of hysteria around any kind of local leftist control of government or the economy, and a professional managerial class that is all in on a permanent labor underclass they can profitably exploit.
They’ll wave the rainbow flags and write op-eds about how much they love immigration and wistfully pine for a health care system that’s more affordable, right up until someone suggests their Starbucks Baristas might strike for better benefits. And then its fascism time.
Incoming!!!
Bruh tankies aren’t further left than me
You are a liberal
That doesn’t make what he said wrong.
It does tho, liberals are center-right at best
I’m not saying they aren’t. It’s still correct, though.
Nope
Does left and right just mean prosocial Vs antisocial? What do these directions used as political labels even mean? Are they useful labels?
It comes from the French revolution, when the people who wanted a better king sat on the right side of the debate room, and people who wanted to get rid of the king sat on the left. From my understanding, right wing is about incremental improvement on what currently exists (optimistically, current right wing isn’t even about this), while left wing is about questioning what exists and redesigning it from the ground up.
It’s about hierarchy. Leftists want equality, fairness, freedom from power. Rightists want authority, order, freedom for power.
Like the other person said. The social vs antisocial thing is just the modern manifestation; that’s why depending on issue the left will argue for personal autonomy while the right will be pro-tradition and “family values.”
This is based, but I think the based zone is bigger than the tankie zone. They’re just louder because they don’t get what they want
They’re just louder because they don’t get what they want
And the rest of us do?
Stop, it hurts
Not louder, just constantly correct and unapologetic
Nah, tankies aren’t any more or less left. They’re just more authoritarian focused.
You literally ban all tankies in comms where you can do it, you’re abusing authoritarianism.
Tankies aren’t more left than anarchists by pure ideology, I’d argue we’re matched there, we’re just more scientific and less corrupted by cold-war propaganda.
You literally ban all tankies in comms where you can do it, you’re abusing authoritarianism,
authoritarianism is when bedtime, am i rigt?
Well, they’re a mod, they take the harshest action a mod can take which is banning, and they do this for literally upvoting a comment
Oh no! What a shame. Oh well, moving on.
Hey, I’m not the one crying authoritarianism here, I’m just exposing the hypocrisy
authoritarianism is when the government that has real control over things that matter and uses it to control up. when a private citizen kicks you out of their club it’s just called a disagreement.
Every successful country has to express some level of Authority to maintain its existence. Especially the USSR which, you know, defeated Nazi Germany almost single handedly. Was that them being “tankies”?
Another example, Vietnam would look like Gaza city if they didn’t express authority. Same with DPRK aka “north Korea “
authoritarianism is when the government
Incredibly uneducated again. Authority is not only when government. Your boss dictating what you do under threat of unemployment is a strong form of authority prevalent in modern society that didn’t exist in the so-called “authoritarian socialist” governments.
It’s a marketplace of ideas right up until you make them look stupid, then they conveniently forget their opposition to authoritarianism just long enough to suppress all dissenting opinions
Enough to suppress tankies*. They won’t eliminate opinions from the capitalism-compatible left. Go ahead and praise European Socdems and war budgets in Europe, you won’t get banned for doing that
Yeah, anarchism is about free association and likewise disassociation.
Authoritarianism isn’t “you can’t come into my house and do what you want” that’s a child’s understanding of the concept.
Bahahaha oh that’s cute. You try to force the human condition into something you think you can quantify and control and call that science?
And what? Tankies are 100% stuck on cold-war propaganda, anarchists don’t care for it and hate both sides. Meanwhile those losers yearn for Stalin.
You try to force the human condition into something you think you can quantify and control and call that science?
No, I approach history, sociology and economy as sciences instead of as vibes-based. I support the system that historically statistically fed the children, not the one that claims in theory it can feed the children without having prisons.
Sure sure buddy. How many children ended up orphans thanks to the gulags? Bet they received a quality upbringing. Oh and the gays in the gulags wanted to be there right?
That’s authoritarianism, not getting banned from a meme comm.
Wont somebody please think of the poor princes??? How many kids had to grow up without their nazi collaborator dad there to guide them on the path of
fascismanticommunism?Everyone thrown in gulags was a prince!!!1one
All those queers? Princes. All those different socialists? Also princes. Hundreds of kingdoms, with millions of dollars each.
guess they didn’t make it that far…
To be fair, there was excess repression during the late 1930s in the USSR, but people massively inflate the numbers and won’t ever tell that only about 1/4 of prisoners in the prison system (whose acronym was GULAG) were actually politically motivated. People also don’t understand that the harsh conditions in Soviet prisons were due to a Soviet-wide famine caused by the Nazi aggression:
prison system (whose acronym was GULAG)
Afaik not true. The average westerner may think so, but GULAG is an acronym for a specific part of the system.
copypasted my earlier comment
if you would consult the chart from chapter 10:
The etymology of GULAG is: “the acronym of Гла́вное управле́ние исправи́тельно-трудовы́х лагере́й (Glávnoje upravlénije ispravítelʹno-trudovýx lageréj, “Chief Administration of Corrective-Labor Camps”)” emphasis mine, as it corresponds directly to the above, specifically the camps under the O.G.P.U. These are where those with harsher sentences were sent, as seen in the chart (3-10 years)
right but this person isnt really the nuanced type, they’re cherrypicking and so am I
were actually politically motivated
Thrers an old joke: Two guys in Gulag talk
-How many year you’ve got?
-20
-For what?
-For nothing.
-You fucking liar. You’d get only 10 for nothing
And here we go with the cold-war propaganda :D called you from the first second.
Anarchism in Spain led to many, many more gays in concentration camps and murdered than in the USSR because anarchism cannot historically defeat fascism! That’s the authoritarianism you should be focusing on, especially in 2026 as we see the rise of fascism once again
It’s called history, I thought you studied it? :D or do you neglect the parts of history that showcase how bad authoritarianism is.
If anarchism is to blame for a different system that came after it than Marxist-Leninism is to blame for the capitalist shithole that is Russia today.
Go choke on a boot, I got better things to do than argue with you.
If anarchism is to blame for a different system that came after it than Marxist-Leninism is to blame for the capitalist shithole that is Russia today
Literally yes, we Marxist leninists study history in order to prevent the same mistakes. That’s why we have entire books devoted to the topic such as “Socialism Betrayed” analyzing the history and mistakes of the socialists in the USSR that led to its dissolution. Imagine engaging in honest criticism of your own ideology.
Still, Marxist Leninism brought 70 years of development and human rights to a former absolutist monarchy and saved its inhabitants from extermination at the hands of Nazism, and it still survives in many countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Laos or freaking China.
Ignoring the part where they’re 100% right about spanish anarchists throwing people in camps because it’s inconvenient for your bullshit lol, try again
Oh, I know better than to participate in this discussion.
Yeah, lots of pointless arguing further down in here. Like arguing about whether authoritarianism is left or right like that even matters. There are no set of single labels that can describe everyone’s motivations, goals, and what they are willing to do to get them, so arguing about the labels is pointless.
are you pro or anti sea piracy?
Probably anti overall, though context could change that. It’s just sea banditry and most bandits aren’t Robin Hood.
The digital version shouldn’t even be compared by using the same name, but if it was honest, then it wouldn’t work as propaganda (not that it seems to be working anyways).
Nice try, Tankie.
Feline anarchy is the only valid. Human whole purpose is to server cats. Fuck everyone else.
Fuck capitalism, fuck communism, fuck fascism, fuck everyone. FELINE ANARCHY!!!
Isn’t that just ancient Egypt? At any rate, based AF.
server cats
I tried to do that, but they wouldn’t let the cats in the colo.
I heard about arachno communism but this is new to me
The green bar is far too wide
What if my political spectrum isn’t on the spectrum at all.
Right wing wants to ban all abortion. Left wing wants all requested abortion to be legal.
Whereas I want mandatory abortion on all pregnancies. I’m not pro-life. I’m not pro-choice. I’m pro-death. Everybody dies!
I also fully support nuking cities, but only as a means of killing all humans. It’s not a political or religious statement.
Actually, can we invent nukes that kill all the humans, but don’t affect the animals? I’m ok with life on earth, just as long as that life isn’t human. Cats are cool. They just look at humans, and judge them, and enslave them. If only they had opposable thumbs, they could take over the world.
As it stands the dominant species on this planet is so dumb it hates other members of it’s own species, just for being a darker shade skin. Or for believing in a different theoretical invisable man in the sky.
And why’s God/Allah/whomever always depicted as male? Why would an omnipresent spirit have genitals at all? Yeah, choke on that. If God did exist, it’s trans by default. And for all you know God and Allah are the same, in the same way that manzanas and apples are the same thing. Jose is eating a manzana, and Bob is eating an apple. Corporate wants you to find the difference in these pictures.
And can we get a government policy that takes a firm stance on vampires? Not ONE government has a prewritten policy on the matter! You can’t convince me Batman isn’t a vampire!
So, lets start a tax system where all of the residents force feed the president bird seed until he throws up, and then use eugenics to create cats capable of mind control. That’s my political stance, and no candidates represent me! These are the flaws in a two party system. There’s a very significant chance that neither party has your best interest at heart.
Can’t get enough of that sugar crisp…keeps me going strong (to kill all the humans)
Based
Based
I would strongly contest the idea that tankies are durther left than anarchists. This only make since if you’re a shitlib.
Anarchists aren’t more left in principle, it’s just that their theoretical ideas don’t actually face the stark realities of confronting global capitalism and imperialism because no significant anarchist movement ever actually got to the part where you defeat capitalism, and therefore didn’t have to defend itself from imperialist siege
Still waiting for the tankies to defeat capitalism. Last I see China has fully embraced it and the Soviets collapsed.
They’ll have China remove it all when they get more billionaires. Marx famously said that socialism can only be done with billionares, and Mao said political power grows from the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
Some progress is better than none, you should spend less time parroting state department talking points and more time learning from what previous and current socialist projects have gotten right
Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
To call China “imperialist” or “capitalist” is to either invent a fantasy of China or to not understand imperialism, capitalism, or socialism. China isn’t a utopia, it’s a real socialist country.
Lmao I’m not wasting my time reading a whole Tankies schizo rant about how awesome China is and how it’s authoritarian 1 party system is actually super cool democracy.
You should read it.
Why would I willingly waste my time on Tankie nonsense?
Because you dismiss even western academics and scholars like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center, and even Wikipedia. Who on Earth do you trust, then? If the communists and socialists can manage to find well-respected western orgs backing our claims, why do you reject even them? How small is your echo chamber allowed to be?
You might learn something. But who knows, maybe China is just evil and nothing can be learned about their society and governance.
Even if you think Chinese socialism is bad, aren’t you obligated to learn about it?
What an excellent counter to academic sources mostly from western organizations. Pejoratives, ableism, and admitting to not even daring to read it.
Okay I’ll give you the tiniest little bite. Your first link is a fucking substsck article from a blatant propaganda pusher that mostly publishes “the west = bad” blog post
So he is trying to claim that China is actually a shining example of democracy, despite being a 1 party state that openly punishes it’s citizens for critisicing the government, the revolution, key reveloutionary figure or communism in general, because of opinion polls that, in a different blog post, he admits are only as high as they are because of China’s censorship of government criticism.
We have actual empirical standards for what a democracy is. China is basically the poster child for modern authoritarianism and does not fit the description of a democratic state in any reasonable way. No opposition is allowed, the party leadership is the one that picks candidates, not the citizens and even then citizens only get this performative vote at the very lowest level of government.
But that’s all I’m going to give you. I’ve fallen into the trap of trying to argue with Tankies who are not arguing from a position of reason, you’re like Magas or Nazis but just intelligent enough to actually cherry pick data and use the language of political theory to attempted to disguise your lunacy.
Reply if you want, call me a shitlib for being pro free and fair elections if you feel like, but I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
Okay I’ll give you the tiniest little bite. Your first link is a fucking substsck article from a blatant propaganda pusher that mostly publishes “the west = bad” blog post
Nope. My first link is to Wikipedia, my second link is to Jason Hickel’s substack. Here’s who he is, per Wikipedia:
Jason Edward Hickel[2] (born 1982) is a Swazi economic anthropologist, academic and democratic eco-socialist.[3] He is a professor at the Institute of Environmental Science & Technology (ICTA-UAB) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona,[4] a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a visiting senior fellow at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, and was the Chair of Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo.[5] He serves on the Climate and Macroeconomics Roundtable of the US National Academy of Sciences.[6]
I guess none of that matters to you? All of his sources are cited, including organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center. The fact that he posts some of his work on Substack doesn’t make it wrong.
So he is trying to claim that China is actually a shining example of democracy, despite being a 1 party state that openly punishes it’s citizens for critisicing the government, the revolution, key reveloutionary figure or communism in general, because of opinion polls that, in a different blog post, he admits are only as high as they are because of China’s censorship of government criticism.
Actually, Hickel’s point is that support for the CPC in China is popular because, above all else, the CPC has consistently delivered on its ambitious but grounded promises to the public. The PRC has seen an unimaginable climb from 1949 under CPC leadership, faster than any other country on the planet, and this has caused the working classes to support them.
We have actual empirical standards for what a democracy is. China is basically the poster child for modern authoritarianism and does not fit the description of a democratic state in any reasonable way. No opposition is allowed, the party leadership is the one that picks candidates, not the citizens and even then citizens only get this performative vote at the very lowest level of government.
This is incorrect, on multiple levels. China does not allow opposition parties, this is true, because factionalism is anti-socialist and is a product of liberal, bourgeois forms of democracy. Instead, policy is dynamic and focuses on consultative democracy. Democracy is not the ability to choose which party represents you, but is the rule by the majority. China has the latter, while the west only has the former.
To repeat myself, the Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
But that’s all I’m going to give you. I’ve fallen into the trap of trying to argue with Tankies who are not arguing from a position of reason, you’re like Magas or Nazis but just intelligent enough to actually cherry pick data and use the language of political theory to attempted to disguise your lunacy.
No, socialists and communists are nothing like MAGA nor Nazis. As we have seen and I have proven, you’re dismissing decorated academics like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, as well as western organizations like the Ash Center, Wikipedia, and Harvard, all to cling to a false vision of reality.
Reply if you want, call me a shitlib for being pro free and fair elections if you feel like, but I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
You aren’t pro “free and fair elections,” you’re in favor of elections dominated by capitalists, and believe Chinese people to be too stupid to realize the superiority of such elections. In order to maintain that chauvanistic view, you dismiss even western academics and scholars like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center, and even Wikipedia. Who on Earth do you trust, then?
China has fully embraced it
Weird, then why are there no fascist parties in China like in the capitalist west? Why was China able to lift 800mn people from poverty in 30 years? Why has China become the manufacturer of 95% of photovoltaic modules in the planet against the interests of the capitalist fossil fuel lobby? Why has China not engaged for 50+ years in wars like the US, EU and Russia? Why does China not engage in imperialist extraction and plunder from the global south like capitalist countries? Fucks sake, ask Chinese people in which system they live. You can also ask Laotians, Vietnamese, Cubans…
Whataboutism, they still are capitalist.
I’ve explained before, but no, China is not capitalist. Public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, it governs the large firms and key industries and dominates the overall character of the economy. Private ownership exists, but is secondary to that, filling in the gaps left behind by the huge state driven industries in secondary and underdeveloped areas, and is folded into the public sector as it grows. The capitalist class is not allowed to gain political power, and the working classes control the state.
Pointing out obvious holes in your logic isn’t whataboutism dumbass
Whataboutism is changing the topic, mate, I’m giving the reasons why China is actuslly not a capitalist country, it’s a mixed socialist economy.
Thanks for supporting the death of people who need modern medicine I guess?
Oh, shut the fuck up. Homo sapiens is obviously a touchstone species for this planet. That’s why we can do better for ourselves and the rest of the lot we share the globe with.
enjoy shitting in a bucket, in the dark.
anarcho primitivists aren’t going to keep the lights on and water going.
Oh my sweet summer child. I’ve been shitting in a bucket I could dump on my compost pile in the dark for a hot minute; because really, do you need a light to see where you poop? It just kinda comes out of you. We’re just keeping the lights on and the water flowing for those of you who can’t figure out not to poop upstream.
Oh my sweet summer child. I’ve been shitting in a bucket
cool cool cool, after I got out of the military I decided shitting outdoors wasn’t my thing.
I could dump on my compost pile
<baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf> do not recommend
I live in a city and don’t think living without lights and water is a ‘solution’, thanks.
What does that flag represent?
If “return to monke” was a political ideology.
One of the most complex social species to ever evolve, not only self-aware but aware that others possess the same awareness. Conquered pretty much every habitable niche on the planet, and quite a few that really shouldn’t have been but still thrived. Domesticated a predator and rival while it was still a threat, then domesticated more animals and plants; can still eat damn near anything and survive. The world’s foremost toolmakers, recorders of knowledge, and perpetually curious. We have so much potential but instead still along shit at one another and befoul the places we live in. We could do better with ourselves than be apes in suburbia.
“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Human self-awareness and what we’ve done with merits some acknowledgment of how it’s helped us become what we are (better or worse). But it’s definitely not something we can lay sole claim to. There’s plenty of others that have their own version that came with whatever evolution drove them to. We do remain the one species that can really, really reshape the environment and landscapes outside of what we need to survive (compared to beavers, who can build wetlands but don’t know exactly what they’re doing). The fact that we know why we’re doing, and that often our actions have negative consequences, is why we owe it to the rest of the beings on this planet to do better.
Seems like the OP meant what I linked. But thanks for the link.
