this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
1110 points (97.1% liked)

Lefty Memes

5474 readers
58 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)


0.5 [Provisional Rule] Use alt text or image descriptions to allow greater accessibility


We require alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.

We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.

When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

ID: A scene from Legally Blonde of a conversation between Warner and Elle in the corridor at Harvard, in 4 panels:

  1. Warner asks "What happened to the tolerant left?"

  2. Elle replies, smiling "Who said we were tolerant?"

  3. Warner continues "I thought you were supposed to be tolerant of all beliefs!"

  4. Elle looks confused "Why would we tolerate bigotry, inequity, or oppression?"

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fuck tolerance.

See? It's that easy. No paradoxes required.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

bigotry, inequity, and oppression

That's the literal opposite of DEI... Is this where they got it from? 🤯

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

No Elons allowed

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (8 children)

The problem I found with the American left this past year as an outsider looking in, is that they all splintered into groups and started seeing the other group on the left as “just as bad as trump”, nobody was “left” enough to be an ally for anyone’s rigid tastes. The left fought among itself for labels, while the conservatives on the right were united.

I understand a lot of it for the younger left had to do with gaza but to anyone else, it’s clear Netanyahu and Musk and other oligarchs planned this out and the American left bought it and let Trump win.

All you can do is unify and strengthen and cut out fascists and fix your country, stop trying to be world police if you can’t even fix yourself.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

'But being world police is the only thing that helps us forget about our problems!'

-People who consume too much propaganda

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

I mean, Warner just doesn't understand tolerance.

Capacity implies there is a limit. Well, asshole, they have reached the limit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Tolerant left? Leftists barely tolerate other Leftists!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

other 'leftists' post legally blonde dialogue as 'lefty meme' content..

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, exactly like that! ^

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is Legally Blonde not left enough for you?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

its more an aversion to cliquey identity memes in general, but yeah, legally blonde is part of it

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Legally Blonde taught me that attractive people are able to do the type of things that regular people can do.

I hold it very near and dear to my heart.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Did you also get the part about how people with stereotypical high fem gender expression who are often described as "ditzy" by a misogynistic society can be intelligent even though they like "girly" things?

That wanting to dress a certain way and naturally having a certain personality or way of speaking doesn't define who you are or what you can do or how good at your job you are?

That in a male dominated field you should be able to express yourself even though the industry wants you to conform and "tone it down" and "not be so emotional" and also smile less but not too much less or else you're "bitchy"? That diversity is good and helps bring in new ideas/perspectives?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

No that part went over my head.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

The whole idea that Tolerance is a Social Contract seems to be what works best: One is Tolerant towards others who are Tolerant and those who are not Tolerant are breaking the Social Contract of Tolerance and thus are not entitled to be the recipients of Tolerance from others.

Tolerance as a Principle doesn't work well exactly because of the Paradox Of Tolerance which is that by Tolerating the Intolerant one is causing there to be less Tolerance since the Intolerant when their actions are tolerated will spread Intolerance (as painfully demonstrated in Present day America, especially with Trump).

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

tolerance is a contract not a gift

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

If you aren't independently wealthy, you're being taken advantage of.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

This misrepresents what tolerance is

We tolerate people that hold those beliefs in that they are allowed to exist in open society where they can be called out

We realize that hiding those people away doesn’t get rid of them, it just lets their views grow unchallenged

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We tolerate people that hold those beliefs in that they are allowed to exist in open society where they can be called out

This point is hugely important, but not for the reason that you intended.

You are mistaken on an essential aspect of your argument: calling out bigoted or discriminatory views out is the definition of not tolerating them. At the same time, the bigotry you’re describing - not permitting people to exist in open society - is exactly the reason we cannot tolerate those kind of views.

The essence of bigotry is that entire categories of individuals don’t deserve the same rights as others. People who hold those views aren’t interested in debating the issue because they believe that their opponents don’t deserve the right to be part of the discussion.

One side is saying that we cannot tolerate these views. The other side is saying that they will not tolerate our humanity.

This isn’t a perspective that is subject to change by reason.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

People who hold those views aren’t interested in debating the issue

It’s not for them, it’s for other people that they would otherwise convince

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lol, nope. You actually have it entirely backward.

Nazis can never win arguments. They can't. Their ideology is not based on reality. It's not based on material conditions. It's not based on convincing others to join them with hard data or well reasoned positions. Nazis win people over by talking to them. They win people over because people who are privileged are opposed to any recognition of that, and above else want to continue to be privileged.

You will never lose a rational debate with a Nazi. It's not really possible, because the nazi will never make rational arguments with you. Nazis instead will allude to conspiracies. They will allude to secret shadow societies that control everyone and that have the explicit goal of upending class hierarchy to take away privilege. Pay attention next time you see a Nazi argue something. See the language they use and see the way they position reality. Nazis lose rational debates. So they never have them to begin with.

Nazis will instead reach for the nearest loudest microphone and will scream their bigotry as loud as possible. They print newspapers, they do interviews, they famously were highly intertwined with radio networks, and so on. The method by which their ideology spreads is by subversion. It's by creating fear of a secret other controlling everyone. The sad fact of the reality is that you cannot argue against that subversion. The argument isn't rational to begin with, rationality cannot disprove it in the minds of those who believe it. A core part of the conspiracies are actually that anyone who argues against them is a part of the conspiracy. Any opposition to Nazism comes from those secret shadow society elements, and so any argument against it can be immediately dismissed.

Simply put, no. The marketplace of ideas is actually perfect for Nazis. If Nazis can't create mass subversive fear of minorities then they cannot recruit. The KKK has largely been expelled from society for the past century (not entirely). You'd think that in a hundred years if, recruiting from the shadows was better for them, membership would be most of the country. Say what you will about American fascism the average voter definitely doesn't think positively about the KKK.

Speaking with a Nazi posits that their ideology has the same value as yours. By engaging in a debate with a Nazi, which they won't win but will instead use the opportunity to further spread Nazi ideology, you legitimate Nazism as a valid position to take. Now someone can be a Nazi, it's okay to be one you can be a Nazi and still deserve the respect of an audience.

Nazis should be expelled from society in their entirety. Neoliberal propaganda has convinced you that all ideas have value. They do not. Killing minorities is inherently wrong. Spreading ideology that advocates the genocide of minorities is inherently wrong. Nazis should be met with a fist. Their media should be dismantled, and they should be imprisoned or expelled from society. Time and time again we arrive at this same place. When I wonder will anyone actually learn?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're wrong, and all you have to do to realise it is look around (hint: when you allow bigotry to exist in open society, aka, tolerate it, it will keep growing like the fucking cancer that it is).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The problem with current society is that many of those places are closed

Social media can filter out being called out (look at what elon did with twitter) or qanon

Fox News doesn’t have labels calling their propaganda false

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Literally had this same chat with an old redpilled friend.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›