[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

For sure. And I don't mean to paint all anarchists with the same brush, since there are genuine anarchists as well as people who use the label anarchist and who even believe themselves to be anarchists, but who I think we would all here would agree are just radlibs at best. But even drawing on my own experience as my leftism developed (which it still is), it wasn't like a conscious "I want to impress liberals" thought process, but more like wanting people to know that I was aware of the "evils of authoritarianism" and that being a leftist and anticapitalist didn't require a submission to "authoritarian" doctrine. I imagine I'm not the only one who felt that way, and even though I know better now, I can still see it sometimes in other people who call themselves anarchists, people who correctly recognize liberals as the common enemy of all leftists, but who still are careful to avoid being associated with "tankies."

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

I was a little reluctant to even use the software analogy because I tend to have the same reaction to it. But I think the problem there for me anyway is that the bazingabrain (lol at your username in this context) dipshits who loved using it so much not only made it cliche but failed to understand it was an analogy and took it as literally true, which is fucking absurd. In this case, I figured it was fitting enough that I could get away with using it.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

You're right, there is definitely theory reasons too, but I think that's more general to states as a concept and doesn't do much to explain the specific grudge against the USSR or why there seems to be hatred for it that goes beyond states in general. There's historical reasons for that specific hate of course, which other comments covered better than I could, but I answered the way I did because of Frank's (OP's) edit about sources of information.

I think there's still another aspect for the specific anti-Soviet sentiment that has to do with many anarchists wanting to differentiate themselves from MLs or "tankies." Since we all agree we're on the left, there's a desire for a lot of anarchists to draw a clear distinction between themselves and those they perceive as adversaries or enemies, and strong disapproval with the USSR is a pretty obvious way to do that. I suspect part of that may in some cases come from a kind of "I'm one of the good ones" or "pick me" attitude, since they can say to liberals "yes, I am a radical leftist, but I'm not like those bad authoritarian tankies that we all know are the bad guys!" But the need to do even that I think has a lot to do with the general anti-communist milieu, that "malware" we're all indoctrinated with by default.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 43 points 1 day ago

I think AssortedBiscuits answered your question in the first couple sentences of their comment:

Most Westerners already hate communists and carry the grudge against the USSR. Anarchists don't really deviate too much from some generic Westerner.

It's really not any deeper than that. There's no need or reason to single out anarchists from any other average westerner when analyzing the source of animosity for the USSR because the answer is going to be the same whether you're talking about chuds, liberals, or anarchists. Even the non-western anarchists who hold a grudge against the USSR, the answer is probably still the same just because of the prevalence of western cultural hegemony all over the world. In your edit, you specify:

I'm curious about what information sources - mentors, friends, books, TV, cultural osmosis, conveys that information to people. Where do individuals encounter this information and how does it become important to them.

But the answer to that is the same information sources you yourself were probably exposed to early on. It's all the same shit we're steeped in, the ubiquity of anti-communism throughout western culture. Animal Farm and 1984 were required reading for me in junior high and high school respectively. The class discussions around these books were centered around teaching us that the USSR was corrupt, oppressive, and that these communist ideals that may sound like good ideas will always and invariably lead to "authoritarianism" and "totalitarian dictatorships" like the Soviet Union. Everyone absorbs that shit young, even the people who might later go on to question the truth of what they were taught, like anarchists.

You say

Newly minted Anarchists have to learn to hate Lenin and Stalin and whoever else they have a grudge against.

But no they don't. Not as newly-minted anarchists anyway. That brainworm software was already installed long ago before they became anarchists. A major part of becoming a leftist is going through a process of uninstalling all that brainworm malware. Anarchists who still hate the Soviet Union are people who have been successful at uninstalling much of the brainworm malware, it's just that they haven't completed the process by uninstalling the anti-Soviet or anti-"tankie" worms... yet. And I say all this as someone who long considered themself an anarchist.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 28 points 1 day ago

I mean he's old enough that statistically he really should have, he's over 100 now so it's a bit shocking when you remember that he hasn't. I always remember he's alive just because of those factoids though. He's been alive for 40% of the entire history of this despicable settler colonial fash country.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 4 points 2 days ago

I honestly would have thought it was a bit making fun of dipshit libs if they hadn't gone mask off in other comments and proving once again the validity of the "scratched liberal" saying.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 7 points 3 days ago

That's kinda funny because yours is a username I have recognized for a long time as one that writes impressively well and is always on point, a name that when I see it I think "yep, this will be a good comment."

Care-Comrade trans-heart

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago

This "frothing mess of a comment"? LOL, it was clear, coherent, consistent, well written, and it took you to task on how slimey and ignorant not to mention hypocritical you are, so you call it a "frothing mess." I wonder who is really rage-cry and frothingfash here.

But no surprise the only thing you're "getting out of it" isn't something she even implied.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 5 points 5 days ago

That is so fucking grim. The rot of American cultural hegemony has already so thoroughly infected so much of the globe. To know that it's not just getting worse but accelerating, killing even faster any actual culture the world over, it really drives me into a doomer emotional state.

99
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by QuietCupcake@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

Edit: So it looks like there are a couple posts about how this crackdown is fake news. Even in this very thread, someone is doing that, though they actually don't have a clue as to what they're talking about.

No, this is not fake news. These sites that are still up are not fmovies, which was itself part of a large piracy network, the rest of which has been dismantled as well, as has been discussed in other posts here. The sites still up are merely copycat sites riding the success of fmovies and trying to cash in themselves. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that, and if you can still watch movies like you did with the real thing, great. But some of them it appears are not the most scrupulous of pirates and have or link to potentially dangerous malware.

Regardless, please don't jump to "fAkE nEwS!" accusations when you don't know what you're talking about. All you're doing is muddying the waters about what really is going on and possibly leading people to think that misleading, potentially dangerous sites are fine. Don't do that.


So that's what happened to my beloved free treat-dispensing Fmoviesz. It hasn't worked for a month or so, but now there's no more need to speculate exactly why. There has been a huge wave of "piracy" outfit takedowns recently, which is both sad and worrisome and I wonder why this is all happening so all of a sudden. Why the severe crackdown now? Or is it the sort of situation where a big domino fell and they're all connected? They're really making sure any hint of commons gets enclosed and demonize it in the meantime.

I also wonder about the political motivations of Vietnam to go along with this and make the actual arrests. Is it due just to pressure from the west? Does Vietnam have any stake in copyright laws and this takedown, or the precedent of it, does actually benefit them somehow? What's the deal with all that?

From the article:

The efforts marked “a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe”, said Charles Rivkin, chairman and CEO of the Hollywood trade group the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the chairman of Ace, in a statement. Larissa Knapp, the executive vice-president and chief content protection officer for the MPA, said the takedown sent a “powerful deterrent message”.

“We look forward to ongoing joint efforts with Vietnamese authorities, US Homeland Security Investigations and the US Department of Justice International Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (Ichip) program to bring the criminal operators to justice,” she added.

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 57 points 6 months ago

Meanwhile, what is it that actually makes it to the front page of that shithole copaganda site?

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 44 points 7 months ago

According to some in here (even hexbears?!? blech), the genocide perpetrator you know is always better than the one you don't, so yeah, you'd better vote for the one you already know is committing a genocide to reduce harm. That's just facts and logic. shapiro-poplar

[-] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 48 points 7 months ago

I'm not sure where the lines are in these definitions, or how much the difference really matters but I'm hoping he will be remembered not just as an enabler but as a direct accomplice, which he is. He could have chosen to stop it at any point, instead he has goaded it on and knowingly, unhesitatingly provided the material means to perpetrate it.

view more: next ›

QuietCupcake

joined 2 years ago