Slop.

read a history book
3/4 of this site has read the jakarta method
whats that

This is where bit accounts and real libbery get indistinguishable, amazing stuff

The ignorant always think they know more, because they never learned enough to know how little they know.

This is so close to being a gr8 b8, I won't believe otherwise.

eastern style goverments use more spice

imagine the brainworms they have to still be using "politically correct" and "cultural appropriation" in a derogatory way. like dawg, your fellow racist chauvinists have moved on to calling leftists chinese/russian bots and tankies. get with the times

If I didn't know that this was a real kind of person, i'd think that someone was trying to yank our collective chain

Like, tailor made gibberish to just honk us off

“This bridge is the exact geographical limit between Balkan and Mitteleuropa!”

a few hours after i saw this thread, i had this convo with someone on irc:

<dude1> "Yemen’s Houthis confirm prime minister killed in Israeli strike on Sanaa"
<dude1> i missed this. does not seem to be widely reported
<dude2> they have a prime minister?
<huf> they're yemen's government
<huf> so... yes?
<dude2> actually they're a tribe, aren't they
<huf> ?
<huf> no?
<huf> they're yemen's government
<huf> westoid media just refuses to acknowledge the state of things because they want their puppet govt there
<dude2> yes, but it's a tribe
<dude2> it's like saying the Arpad was the prime minister of the hungarians
<huf> ?
<huf> why?
<dude2> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Houthi_family
<dude2> I'm just saying that prime ministers are a recent invention
<dude2> tied to european style of government
<dude2> nevertheless, it could have been someone with the title "prime minister"

i'm afraid there's no hope.

That was a fun thread to monitor

I read that, the instance should change name to lemmy.born.today just for this person

Love when I get to play Boomer Or Child

honest leadership

Has this person literally never listened to a Democratic Senator or Pres/VP speak?

The using "emotional" as a insult was peak level unserious.

Like in a parroting sort of way: "I've learnt calling people emotional is very effective and adultlike in debatebroland, so I will do that all the time when I am being an unserious fuck on the internet."

Still at it https://hexbear.net/u/hector@lemmy.today

politically correct

Lmao if anything we're politically incorrect. If someone was to praise China and communism on MSM they'd be laughed out of the room and banned from TV.

This thread was hilarious. I thought it might be amusing to have deepseek summarize the whole thing:

Analysis of Conversations

The provided text depicts 52 separate but nearly identical conversations, all stemming from the same initial post by a user named hector. The conversations are characterized by a deep ideological divide, repetitive arguments, and significant frustration on both sides.

1. Hector's Argument

Hector's position is that of a disillusioned liberal who believes the foundational principles of Western liberal democracy are being systematically dismantled and replaced with a form of autocracy he pejoratively labels "Eastern-style government."

Core Tenets of His Argument:

• The Threat of Autocracy: He believes the U.S. political establishment is using any excuse to expand domestic military power, which will inevitably lead to the erosion of civil liberties and the seizure of political control by authoritarian forces ("the military sees the weakness of our political leaders... and subordinates the political system").
• The "Eastern-style Government" Bogeyman: This is the central and most controversial pillar of his argument. He uses the term "Eastern" to describe:
  • Autocracies and Despotisms: Governments with a single, all-powerful ruler, often referencing historical examples like ancient Egypt, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and modern Russia.
  • Lack of Freedoms: He defines these governments by what they lack: no genuine elections, no free press, no freedom of expression, and no right to criticize those in power.
  • A Historical Dichotomy: He repeatedly insists that the distinction between "Western" (representative, free) and "Eastern" (autocratic, despotic) governments is a well-established, centuries-old academic and historical terminology that his critics are ignorant of.
• Idealization of a Past West: He nostalgically references the post-WWII era in the U.S., where a minimum wage job could support a family, unions were strong, antitrust laws were enforced, and the government was more representative (though he acknowledges it was "never perfect").
• Defensiveness and Accusations of "PC Culture": When challenged, he consistently deflects by accusing his critics of being a "PC Brigade," "woke mob," or "auxiliary PC Brigade." He claims they are engaging in bad-faith attacks by willfully misinterpreting his use of "Eastern" as a racial/cultural signifier rather than a political one. He believes this "outrage boner" is counterproductive and plays into the hands of the right wing.

In summary, Hector's argument is: "Our historically representative Western government is being intentionally transformed into an Eastern-style autocracy, and you are all attacking me over semantics instead of fighting this existential threat."

2. The Community's Argument

The community (composed of users with names like 666, RedWizard, Gucci_Minh, spacecadet, etc.) is overwhelmingly composed of leftists, Marxists, and communists, as they explicitly state. Their counter-argument is multifaceted and fundamentally challenges Hector's entire worldview.

Core Tenets of Their Argument:

• Critique of the "East/West" Dichotomy: They reject Hector's central framing as Orientalist, racist, and intellectually bankrupt. They argue:
  • It relies on a racist, colonial-era worldview that creates a false binary between a "free, enlightened West" and a "servile, despotic East."
  • It ignores the fact that many brutal "Eastern" dictatorships (e.g., South Korea, Iran under the Shah, Indonesia under Suharto) were/are direct puppets or creations of Western governments (specifically the U.S.).
  • The U.S. itself has a long history of suppressing democracy abroad and supporting autocrats who serve its interests.
• The West is Already an Autocracy (Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie): They argue that Western "representative democracy" is a facade. True power lies not with voters but with the capitalist class.
  • Elections are not truly representative: They point to low voter turnout, gerrymandering, and the failure to pass popular policies (like universal healthcare) despite majority public support.
  • The Press is not free: It is owned by billionaires and serves to manufacture consent for state and corporate interests (Manufacturing Consent is referenced).
  • Freedom is selective: They highlight the historical persecution of communists, anarchists, and leftists in the U.S. (blacklists, COINTELPRO, the Communist Control Act) as proof that freedoms are only granted to those who do not challenge the capitalist status quo.
• Material Conditions Over Abstract Freedoms: They consistently point to material outcomes to measure a society's success, arguing that many socialist or "Eastern" governments outperform the West on metrics that matter to working-class people:
  • Higher home ownership rates (China).
  • Lower homeless rates.
  • Better food security and protein intake.
  • Access to healthcare and education. They contrast this with the poverty, exploitation, and lack of basic necessities experienced by many in the "free" West, including themselves personally.
• Critique of U.S. Imperialism: They frame the U.S. not as a beacon of freedom but as an imperialist core that enriches itself by exploiting the Global South through military intervention, resource extraction, and debt traps (IMF). The relative comfort of some Western citizens is paid for by this global exploitation.
• Rejection of Liberal Solutions: They mock Hector's proposed solution—getting better Democratic candidates—as naive. They believe the entire system is irredeemably corrupt and must be replaced, not reformed.

In summary, the community's argument is: "Your 'Eastern-style government' is a racist myth. The West is already a dictatorship of capital that projects its own autocratic tendencies onto its enemies. Your liberal worldview is a fantasy that ignores material reality, historical fact, and the exploitative, imperialist nature of the Western state you defend."

Overall Analysis of the Discourse

• Talking Past Each Other: The conversations are a classic case of two sides operating from completely different foundational axioms. Hector believes in the ideal of liberal democracy and sees it decaying. The community believes liberal democracy is a sham that never truly existed in the first place.
• Repetition and Escalation: The discussions are incredibly repetitive because neither side concedes any ground. Hector repeats his definitions, and the community repeats its critiques. This leads to frustration and escalation, with Hector becoming more defensive and the community becoming more dismissive and insulting.
• Ideological Divide: The core divide is between Liberalism (Hector) and Anti-Imperialist Communism/Socialism (the community). They cannot agree on the definitions of freedom, democracy, or even the basic terms of the debate ("East," "West," "representative").
• Hector's Realization: In the later conversations (e.g., Conversation 8), Hector realizes he is not debating fellow liberals or Democrats but communists, which "explains a lot" to him. However, this realization doesn't change his position; it only solidifies his view of his opponents as ideological enemies.

Hectorwatch update: Most recent post was 12 hours ago and they seem to have adopted some ideas through osmosis, still very racist, jury is still out on whether they are baby or boomer, still very funny to watch.