This doesn't make any sense to me. I know they aren't Marxists, but the goals of communism are people-centric. We're trying to achieve a better society for all people, so why exclude certain groups from that?

I've only been here for a few days, so I don't know the "history" of lemmygrad and its relationship with the other instances. Do we have a running count of the instances that have blocked us? I know they're ignorant liberals, and obviously as a principled Marxist I'm ready to respond to their pre-programmed, anti-Marxist rhetoric, but there's communities on Reddit in which I'd never had a single interaction with someone spewing anti-ML bullshit. For example, I'm very interested in NBA basketball. I like to be involved in the drama around the game. If a large group of NBA enthusiasts start a community on an instance that has us blocked, I'm locked out because the administrators of that instance shit their little britches seeing a passionate Marxist speak their mind on lemmygrad. I was thinking about starting a community here for the NBA, hopefully we gather enough members to facilitate content creation in smaller communities, despite the rampant blocking. Edit: Now that I think about it, honestly I think I'm fine just making communities for shit I'm interested in here, regardless of our connection to those other instances. Looking through the ones I know have blocked us made me cringe off the face of the planet. Wouldn't even want to talk basketball with them.

The fight against unjust laws requires militant protests, and the fight against bigotry needs to be relentlessly aggressive. It is a privilege to believe self-defense cannot be used to counter fascism in its early stages. In the liberal mindset, violence should have been used only when Jews were lined up to enter the gas chambers. Once Jews became political targets, violence should have been the first step. After the Nazis declared Jews enemies, they had the right to defend themselves with violence. A violent approach at the beginning could have prevented the rise of the Nazi party. Liberals' inability to grasp this will lead to more marginalized minorities dying around the world. Militant protests should be organized against the removal of women's abortion rights in the USA. The rights of black people and LGBT rights should also be protected by force. The protests should be held in front of, if not inside, the houses of republicans. These protests should be as aggressive as possible, creating an atmosphere of fear among those who oppose the rights of women and others. There should eventually be a tipping point when their fear becomes reality, if they are not to stop their unnecessary oppression. A marginalized group does not receive human rights, they are stripped of them. The removal of your birthrights should be violently opposed as soon as possible. Fascists use democracy to their advantage. It does not matter whether they are politicians or citizens, a right-wing politician will oppress both with his political power. Our ability to stop fascism will be limited if liberals do not exercise their political authority. It is too frightening for liberal politicians to use their power for real moral purposes, so they won't help. Our politicians accept racism as an opinion and fascism as a solution. People are imprisoned for petty crimes, but you can speak freely if you make a sincere effort to recruit people to your fascist ideology. Creating a safe environment for fascists to speak without fear is not only dangerous, but those who allow it are complicit in their crimes. If a racist or homophobic person gets into a room with a fascist. Within a few hours, if they discussed politics, two fascists came out of the room. To prevent fascism, liberal voters must take risks, including letting go of their flawed concept of democracy. Unless they engage in militant protests or suppress bigots freedom of speech, liberals and fascists are the same. The right to say racist remarks only protects those who intend to use racist language. The same applies to all bigoted speech. In a society where freedom of speech is unlimited, only fascists would benefit. *Initially, they came for racists' freedom of speech. After that, they remove homophobic speech. Afterwards, they demanded removal for sexist speech. When they came for me I gave them a high five and said thank you. Because I am not a racist, homophobic or sexist person. * It is always necessary to respond aggressively to the claim that bigotry is merely a difference of opinion. The methods used by marginalized groups should be more aggressive. The fight against racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia should extend beyond shaming bigots. When an oppressed minority kills a fascist, it always does so in self-defense. Killing fascists is a way to defend ourselves from their ideology that hates us and seeks to oppress us. Instead of asking whether fascists should be slaughtered, we should ask whether they deserve to suffer on their way to the slaughterhouse.

https://www.hexbear.net/post/270650 I really hope beehaw is slow to block them, those shitposters are feral edit: bad news, they say they're not even going to be federating at first and when they do it will probably just be with us :( I wanted to see the confusion from libs interacting with maniacs on that instance

Kind of amazing how many instances are blocking lemmygrad as soon as they're created. I know that liberals really don't like dissenting opinions but goddamn

Muslims and christians arguing, that’s all. It’s really unpleasant and usually I avoid these conversations. Am I saying I hate christians? Of course not, I have met many of them who are very kind people, though this may be different with others. Maybe one day, all of us shall be at peace.

I recently had a discussion with someone about socialism etc... I thought about countering the argument that socialism doesn't work, because it has failed once. I came up with: "Well, the first French revolution failed, and the people still continued establishing a second bourgeois democratic republic. So why should we stop to create a second socialist republic, just because the first attempt failed / has issues?" Does this argument make any sense, or is this incomparable (I know it kind of is, but still)? Also, isn't it a core value of Marxism-Leninism to learn from past failed policies and politics, and correct them in the future?

Just a fun question I thought of.

I'm struggling with people around me (in the US) being so politically disengaged and just apathetic towards very serious things. I don't want to be the stereotypical obnoxious commie who injects politics into everything, but at the same time, basically everything political and we have very different understandings of the world so its hard to just sit back and be like everyone else. Everyone around me just doesn't seem to care and I don't know what to do. I'm getting involved with a party again soon once I get back on my feet but I don't know how to approach people who are just chilling and galloping through, y'know? Maybe this is a useless or dumb post but I'm just kind of lost

I don't know what to think about the Gang of Four. I think that Hua Guofeng was a dogmato-revisionist due to his "Two Whatevers" theory.\ https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1977/124.htm\ I don't know what to think about Deng either since I've heard many conflicting opinions about him. I've also heard the claim that China is capitalist, and people on Discord often bring up this picture:  What were the Go4's objectives? Hua Guofeng had them arrested, but Hua was an dogmato-revisionist.

Some comrades on Discord were saying that the USSR during Khrushchev's time was putting down communist movements in Peru and India and supporting the reactionary Indian government. The Peru stuff is rather dubious considering that Fujimori rose to power during Gorby's time, but the Khrushchevites started acting imperialist towards the rest of the Eastern Bloc. (Ulbricht was soooooo much better than Honecker as Honecker simped for the Khrushchevites). That comrade has some interesting opinions on China, such as that the CPC isn't really socialist after the right-deviationist takeover by Deng. I think that the Go4 were better than Deng, and that Xi Jinping's trying to clean up the mess made by Jiang and Hu.

bottom text

Do you find it difficult to stay in touch with your friends or family?

Whenever there’s some issue that rustles liberal feathers, I’ll see post upon post about how frustrated people are with <insert issue here> on Instagram stories. I’ve actually had some success sliding up on their Instagram stories and sharing my communist perspective on whatever pissed them off. Success being, they are receptive to these ideas and are willing to learn more after their first exposure. I’m not saying I’ve seen this here, I’m new here of course, but I find online leftists always seem to immediately point to literature when a liberal asks in good faith to be educated on communism. And of course any self respecting Marxist would recommend reading literature, and anyone who genuinely wants to learn more absolutely should read literature; but I believe it’s extremely important to put effort into our initial explanations before referring an interested liberal to literature. Does anyone else have a similar experience radicalizing people through social media?

Hi comrades! This is my first time on Lemmygrad, so I apologise for the abrupt introduction. I saw there's an introduction community, although it seems abandoned. I'll consider making a post later today perhaps in this community, if you have better ideas for where it should fit, please let me know! How do you deal personally with expressing affection towards family, lovers etc.? Capitalism has definitely commodified affection/love/relationships in every aspect (e.g. Valentine's day), so it's hard to not fall in for "consumerist love". Obviously, a type of affection and compassion I'd argue are integral for the wellbeing of any society, although invidiualism as we know hardly promotes this. The culture also creates expectations of how affection and any type of relationship should be "performed". Corporations such as Disney which have a near monopoly on all expressions of late-capitalist culture often set stereotypes through the media they present to us, a good example being the Aladdin animated movie which is very racist, or Tarzan which was not popular until Disney animated it and made a friendlier version of its story. Thus this gives birth to lots of unrealistic expectations and pressures, because we feel we have to "perform" to our friends, family and lovers like we're on a stage. This ties in and is reflected in the usage of social media, we can see unrealistic body expectations, although mostly in the cishet space as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's a combination of factors, first off the culture sets everyone up regarding expectations then they're exacerbated on mainstream social media such as Instagram. Now regarding a more personal aspect, I find that I have a hard time showing affection, even to family. Some people naturally express their emotions well, while I find myself not even going for hugs, and so on. I mostly internally justify it as "oh the other person would think it's awkward," perhaps it's a lack of communication on my side. More often than not, this resulted in people thinking that I'm uninterested in them (as in friendship or a relationship), or even in an extreme case someone thought I hated them which was definitely not the case. I'm more of an introvert, although when I get to know the person better I become rather extroverted with them, so I think I'm ambiverted. I want to learn to express my emotions better through creating mostly, although I have yet to find a good creative process to suit me other than writing, which I enjoy. I think social anxiety plays a role in this, also the fact that I overthink most social encounters and exaggerate to myself how the other person understands my actions. I'd love to hear your experiences and opinions regarding the subject!

Seriously, I cannot believe the amount of racist, sexist, and overall just shitty things that are said. I just played an FPS for the first time in a while (CSGO) and Jesus christ. Just makes it not fun lol. Maybe I'm too sensitive

They asked what our starting pay is. Funny thing is, I don't even remember. I could theoretically do the math backwards from paystubs, but eh. I know how much to expect. Regardless, I said somewhere around 13 dollars, but the company I work for is unionized so the shit pay is offset a little bit by ensured basic rights like the ability to actually take breaks, unlike any of my previous workplaces. Coworkers are awesome, even management's tolerable. They said they worked for a place that was "worker-run" but then it stopped being so worker-run so they quit. Then they said *Walmart* of all places had started hiring at 17 an hour, all positions, so that was still their first choice. To see a small wage increase (not even to a livable wage) sway a worker in real time against the right to negotiate with their employer as workers collectively... *bruh*. It just sucks. I once worked for a pharmacy where I made $16.50 an hour and I consider it one of the worst jobs in the world. It was so alienating, I had intrusive thoughts like ::: spoiler unhinged *"maybe in this hellworld the only way to escape this miserable unlife is to become the slaveowner. I am a slave to insurance companies. I am a slave to Big Pharma. I am a slave to my hitlerite managers. I am a slave to ungrateful piece of shit geriatrics who are upset they had to wait 5 minutes longer for their viagra than normal because insurance is trying to charge another customer $800 for their life-preserving medication and I'm trying to convince them fucking not to. Nobody is grateful or ever will be for your labor and all of your labor is in service of capitalist slaveowners. this will never change."* ::: - - etc. etc. It's maybe a bit worrisome that I remember that feeling so intensely, I don't know. At the same time, those thoughts and my internal battle against them were instrumental in creating a fundamental understanding in me that wages are not worth your sanity, your ability to take breaks, your ability to call in, your ability to take or leave more work at your request. I am so grateful for my new job tbh, cringe as it may be. I am learning to enjoy labor for labor's sake. Making actual, meaningful connections with people. And I get to take breaks, in fact I am forced to take a break. This is because we have a union. I don't know if Walmart conditions have improved generally... but every time I've been inside a Walmart, I've thought to myself *If I ever find myself working here, I **am** going to *redacted* myself. I'll have to." I don't know. I'm having a strange time with it all. Unions are good, and I'm beholding a part of the struggle in real-time. Thanks for reading or even skimming 🫡 Don't work at Walmart if you don't have to, kids.

It is the anthem of once 15 united republics that were a beacon of hope against the western capitalist powers and fascism, it also paved the way for many AES countries we know today.

Trying to post a study here.

Found this on the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake Apparently, only five African countries have lower calorie intakes. It could be misleading but if I search for similar statistics on this country I get similar results. I believe the embargo has something to do with it, if not most to do with it. What insight or comments can you guys give?

What are some relatively minor things that bother you? It doesn't necessarily have to be related to Marxism or politics. One of my pet peeves is when libs say something political or talk about politics, and then say it isn't political. Like they think their liberal ideology is just common sense and it can't possibly be challenged.

I had to vote the frickin demsocs  me is dum

From what I can tell he just seems like some libertarian who wants to pick fights. His top song (cover above) is called [genocide](https://youtu.be/d697eVYYOlc) and features exclusively people that seem to be implied to be Soviets. I expected some horseshoe theory, but the songs just him complaining about haters plus some Nazi related jokes. He’s got a song called Chinese propaganda (feat. MKULTRA), and at first it seems like he could just be responding to the haters on Twitter by joking about his XI Bucks, but then he talks about Taiwan and “our supreme leader” and I’m not sure. If he knows what MKULTRA is maybe he’s not totally ignorant. He also has a song called Isis type beat, which seems like a respectable shitpost, and it reminded me of Yugopnik talking about Isis edits going hard. I did some googling, and all I got of his politics are he is representative of the ambiguous “American melting pot.” Thoughts? Edit: weird YT short of his-https://youtube.com/shorts/W4PrmKB0FX8?feature=share

Or do they only teach liberal nonsense?

Once a week my friends and I play dungeons and dragons, using DnD Beyond for our character sheets and dice, and Roll20 for our world (maps, player characters, NPCs, etc.). I’m playing a dog folk girl based heavily on the blonde dog in my profile pic with the same name, look, and sassy attitude too. She’s fourteen, and in our campaign dog folk and humans age at the same rate. She’s a full blown communist and I’m not shy about voicing her ideals, while I don’t say the word “communist” during role play, it is explicitly stated in her character sheet. Using the term “Marxist-Leninist” would be inaccurate considering Marx and Lenin don’t exist in the world of our campaign, unless my DM pulls something. Hell, my character’s last name is Luxemburg. I’m writing this post because I’m looking for some advice on how to play a revolutionary leader? For context, my character is the daughter of two revolutionaries, Clara Luxemburg and Sacha (no last name). Both parents lived outside a dog folk town where they acted as Robin Hood-esque figures. At one point enough was enough and they began plans for an uprising against the nobles of their town. To make a long story short the revolution failed and Sacha and Clara were executed to send a message to the other revolutionaries. My character fled, to be on her own after witnessing their deaths, and ten years later she finds herself in a city building a revolution with the homeless population against the noble families, the church, and the royals. This plan was interrupted when our party was arrested and I broke an anarchist out of prison (yes, shame on me, but in my defence I didn’t know he was an anarchist). But after a bunch of shit and an Ace Attorney court scene, my girl is back on track to leading the revolution once more and going back to her dog town to prevent a genocide. The genocide is because I accidentally sparked a race war between the humans and the dog folk. Now I’m nervous and unsure on how to go about this. While I am well aware that this is a fantasy game and I could just do whatever I wanted in terms of leading the revolution (the rest of my party weren’t involved in this part of the game, but now they might be) but I wanted to do it accurately to how our real world revolutionaries have done it. Is there any reading material on how Lenin, or Castro and Che Guevara, or Sankara (etc.) went about planning, building, and carrying out their revolutions? This sounds silly as hell but playing this character actually helps make concepts stick better in my head, it also feels nice to act out scenarios I know I never could in real life. Anyway I know this was rambly, goofy if you will, but I hope you were at least somewhat entertained reading a little bit about my little commie dog. If you need more background information or are just curious about the campaign itself please don’t hesitate to ask. I truly love interacting with you all and look forward to seeing the numbers next to that bell in the corner. Note: Sorry for any spelling and/or grammatical mistakes, the keyboard I’m using is very small and weird. It’s for an iPad.

I hope everyone has been doing good and that these past few months have been well for you. Its been quite the trip for me, and I wanted to apologize for not being able to contribute these past few months like I was able to previously. I was dealing with the possibility of receiving a life changing and potentially terminal cancer diagnosis. Simultaneously I was also dealing with the end of my semester and a plethora of exams, papers, and projects; along with job hunting to support myself these coming months. These left me with little time and energy to myself, and I wasn't able to participate here. Thankfully the tests for the diagnosis were false positives and the problem was instead very minor and has been dealt with. I also finished off my semester as strong as I could with perfect marks! Which has in turn allowed me to transfer from my small local college, to a much more prestigious university! I did also want to apologize for leaving on a sour note, as while I did have a lot going on which led to my fuse being short, I still feel terrible about my previous exchange and have no excuse for it. If Maud Dibber is reading this, I would also wish to apologize to you directly and expressly. Overall things have been going much better then before for me, and I look forward to contributing again!

For me it's Metro 2033 by Dmitriy Glukhovskiy, which is 500 pages long

Stannis Baratheon #1. *Bows out.*

First, sorry if this isn't the best community for this kind of thing, but I hope you will engage with me regardless. Now... **Warning: This post will be US-centric as far as specific information pieces like tax rates, but I am under the impression the underlying principle can apply to any nation in the West and those aligned alongside it (looking at you, Japan, South Korea, and NATO).** So, to survive in the Imperial core, you essentially have to hold a job if you aren't a capitalist or landlord. You earn a wage, and use that wage to not starve and maybe have a roof overhead. A portion of that income is taxed. In the US, the typical working class person gives roughly ~30% of their income to the nation-state as taxes. Here is where the crux lies: Yes, some of that money does go toward worthy things like maintaining roads, funding medical care for some people, some social programs, etc., **but**... Of the fiscal year 2023 federal budget, about ~37% goes toward military past (think interest on loans taken out in order to kill people) and current costs. This does not include all Department of Homeland Security and all State Department, though those are "partially" included in military. So an average US based full time worker works about ~8 paid hours a day, plus or minus some depending on specifics, but ~8 is considered the standard. About a third of that time is taken by the government in the form of taxes. And about a third of **that** time is used to fund military shit. A third of 8 hours is about 2.6 repeating. A third of that is 0.8 repeating. So a little under an hour (roughly 53 minutes) each day is spent helping the military. A week that is about 4.4 repeating hours. Do the math and that time helping the military murder people adds up. This makes every US worker an accomplice to murder, whether they like it or not. It doesn't matter if you are a factory worker, barista, or paid anti-war activist for an NGO, everyone in the US paying income tax is helping kill poor people. Now that I've established that, I have another point to make from a moral perspective: if you have the power to help people (or stop hurting people), it is your moral duty to do so. If you are walking down the street and you see a child (or any person really, it isn't the fact that it is a child making it imperative you save them) in a pond drowning, and you can swim, then you absolutely must stop, get in there, and save that child. It doesn't matter if you'll get your suit all muddy and wet and you have to present at some meeting soon, or whatever. You must go in there and save them. And then obviously, if you don't have the capacity to help people (or stop hurting them), then you can't be expected to carry out that moral imperative. So for the drowning child example, if you can't swim, you can't be expected to go out and save the kid. Or if you can't reach the pond for whatever reason, like a physical barrier is blocking you, then you can't be expected to save the child. Now, this imperative extends to everything in life. For example, you have to buy a shirt because your other shirts are for whatever reason unusable as a shirt anymore. You are presented with two choices: a shirt made using slave labor and a shirt made voluntarily. It is you moral imperative to get the shirt using voluntary labor. It doesn't matter if it is not as pretty. It doesn't matter if you like the brand less. Those are of moral in-consequence. Using slave labor is bad. Now, back to my original question: As long as material conditions are such that a revolution is impossible, if you have the capacity to leave the Imperial Core and stop paying taxes, you must do so. Staying would mean you are helping murder people. It does not matter that moving, especially abroad, is inconvenient. It does not matter that it might mean you need to learn about and get used to a new culture. It doesn't even seem to matter (correct me if I'm wrong) that your extended family will be sad, if they aren't dependent on you for their life or welfare (thus creating a moral barrier preventing you from being about to go), then it is your duty to stop aiding and abetting murder. It doesn't even matter if emigrating might mean a noticeable drop in your standard of living, as long as you can meet all your human needs and expect to live a similar life expectancy then it is your duty to go. Now, obviously I am assuming that such a person who takes these things into consideration should also behave respectfully when they arrive at their destination. They will treat locals with love, kindness, and respect. They will strive to do work that is fulfilling and aids society while meeting their needs. They will speak the local language to the best of their ability and be respectful of local traditions and customs. In a Marxist context, this person would also continue to build resiliency and community in their new home, aiding the working class by way of praxis. I am also going under the assessment that a communist revolution will not happen in the relevant Imperial Core countries in a reasonable time to morally justify staying and continuing to pay into this war tax system in the meantime. Also, obviously this moral imperative doesn't apply to people who **can't** leave. If you can't afford to move, you can't afford to move. If you can't get permission from a qualifying non-imperialist nation state to legally enter, then you can't go. Comrades, am I missing something? Where is my argument flawed if it is flawed? Is there a justification to continue to pay into the war system when you have the option to stop? Please note: These thoughts are influenced by Peter Singer's 1972 paper titled "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" and then applied to my current understanding of material conditions in the US (and extended to some degree to the rest of the Imperial core based on what I hear from comrades, friends abroad, and media intake [both reliable and less reliable]). I am not aware of any Marxist literature which might cover these sorts of dilemmas, so if you have suggestions, I'm all ~~ears~~ eyes. Lastly, if you downvote, please say why so I (and maybe other comrades too) can learn and grow from it.

The first question I have is a little more obvious, but I would like to have more in-depth explanations/resources for the second. These questions are based on an argument I had. 1. Do advertisers give the products they advertise value? My reasoning is that no, they do not give products more value. Useful labor gives value, whereas advertisements are both (a.) basically useless and (b.) not related to the production of the commodity. The person I was arguing with talked about how diamonds are useless, and they were artificially given demand by both 'limited' supply and vigorous advertisement campaigns. I replied that price gauging/differentiating exchange values does not mean an increase in use value/actual value, and the consumers were purely getting ripped off. The other person then said that advertisements, in fact, contributed to the inherent value of a product (somehow?) by making the consumer enjoy the commodity more. To me, even if advertisers were to produce use value, it would be in advertisements, not the commodities themselves. Given all of this do sales-people and advertisers fit the description to be part of the labor aristocracy? 2. If (a.) an artist's work is useful in creating art, (b.) art in society has value, and (c.) the value of art is 'subjective', do artists even produce use-value, or is art even subjective?

Final Edit: I have decided to take a break from here for undecided time. I might come back when sure of myself. Limited activity at main instance. Edit: I am replying, so please refer to them to get an idea of my worldview. Context: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/650259 and these removed comments of mine, before Forte temp banned me ::: spoiler a screenshot of my comments  ::: Before I start off, I want to tell that it is true that I am a cis het male human that holds monogamist views with the mildest of traditional takes. It is also true that despite never having had a real mother or a girlfriend in my life, I never became an incel. My mindset at the core is unapologetically survivalist, independent and masculine. I have also been chivalrous with women, and have been inclusive of the non binary communities. Some people will try to portray this as me never getting female love in life and all kinds of assumption based crap, which I can counter with years of selfless privacy community work. I want to know what is so misogynistic about: * a woman having multiple boyfriends and being a social player, which is very common today in the dating scene * traditional views like monogamy instead of promiscuity are better * social code being different for men and women * women often dating for free food * Western feminism not being a true representation of feminism, and how much it currently harms mainly men, and creating polarisation between both sexes * psychology of dominance and submission in relationships factoring into the stability of any long term relationships, including marriage Is it not deceitful to deny these patterns exist, and to just call someone misogynistic and shut down the conversation? Or have I misunderstood what Lemmygrad means for these kinds of conversations? When did this place become so lib, that people were straight up told to *"change your ways before you end up ruining a poor girl’s life"*, or how *"using 'male' and 'female' to refer to men and women as if they're animals"* is a terminology that radical feminists would otherwise get excused for? What are these assumed ideas I have that are so batshit crazy, compared to the kinds of values that hardcore masculinity gurus, Tate fans, incels/femcels hold? And what is the defined threshold expected for this place to accommodate people? I hope I do not see a "404:site_ban" before I get to engage and get answers on this, and have a decent conversation. I am not threatening. I merely want a dialogue.

Comrades, I just got an old 80s theory book from an older comrade as a gift and you're lucky to even find a used print-version anywhere, let alone a pdf version. Even the title of the book itself yields a handful of results at most. So I thought: This shit needs to be digitized. Thing is, I don't have it in me to pull this thing apart just to scan it. Scanning via phone is suboptimal in my experience and doesn't yield the best results to read on a kindle/pdf-reader. I'd be willing to just retype the thing, but at 300 pages that's quite the workload too. Is there a good way to do this that's not super out there, expensive or time consuming?

Thanks to the new Zelda game, I am getting back into loving video games and making time for them. I'm playing Ocarina of Time atm :) Also, I've been reading The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. So far, really nice, but not anywhere close to the end yet. Same goes for Moby Dick by Herman Melville (the racism gets unbearable though). And then, I've been starting my journey with Nietzsche, I chose Ecce Homo to begin with. Lastly, some music! The new Lana del Rey and Danny Brown x Jpegmafia albums have been on repeat. Been getting into the group "Lamp" as well. Bad Bunny released a song a few days ago and I've been absolutely addicted to it too. Hope my beautiful comrades have been well, love you all! Remember to take care of yourselves and your circle.

I'll start! I joined lemmygrad around the whole "SOSCUBA" thing, my name isn't actually Jonathan. Duh. I was mocking the "spanish first name bunch of numbers" guys who were shitting on Cuba and pretending to be Cuban from Miami. I'd like to hear your stories!

I may or may not have a reputation around here for being a communist, furry, and someone who does a lot of fiction writing and worldbuilding (which has largely been the last thing keeping me on Reddit because there isn't a large enough writer/worldbuilder community on Lemmy.) Well, this is something I've been thinking about this on and off about some of my works. Generally I try to put some socialist or leftist elements into my story premises since it's something I care about so much, but I also rarely have normal, human worlds where the ideology can be seamlessly fit into the setting without some heavy modification. Since I write mainly sci-fi and fantasy with non-human characters, it seems that since those premises are so far removed from reality, readers tend to almost instinctively draw tons of implications paralleling human society (I definitely do this as well whenever I read someone else's sci-fi or fantasy work), and to be honest I'm worried about people looking at my works, and thinking I'm trying to send a message that I absolutely didn't intend to. I write a lot of things that involve intelligent animals, especially predator and prey species trying to live in harmony despite their history. I've already gotten a few comments asking if my characters of different species represent human races or predator-prey tensions is akin to racism, which I never intended for these things to be interpreted this way (in fact, I've been interested this animals living harmony concept since I was a kid, long before I even knew what race and racism was). I think it also doesn't help that the well-known pop culture thing my world is compared to the most, Zootopia, does actually attempt to compare different species to human ethnicities and failed pretty hard at it with tons of bad implications in its message. But I'm not trying to do that at all, I genuinely just wanted to create a world where different species of animals live together and I just think it would make sense if different species of animals had their own culture, ways of doing things, governments that represent their unique interests, politics and political interactions with other species, etc; since different species obviously do have real biological differences that are relevant to how they live their lives (also, it should be noted that I'm also not claiming that the characters in this are infallable or live in a society that does everything right, but I feel that too many times when a story has a "good guy" organization or country/society that is seen by the characters as a good place to be, readers think the author wrote it that way because that's their idea of a *perfect* society with no major issues), which human ethnicity obviously do not have such differences since we're all the same species. Again I bring this up because I've literally been asked if this is trying to parallel real human racial issues which it is not (cause if it does, the unfortunate implication would be that human ethnicities *do* have differences and *should* have separate governments and). I just really love animals and want to use them in a meaningful way in my writing, and I don't even think comparing different species of animals to human ethnicities even makes sense precisely *because* different species have real biological differences, but it's not like I can make that known to the reader. What do you think of all this? Is unintended implications/interpretations of fictional works something to actually be concerned about? Do you concern about it when doing worldbuilding of your own? I'm mainly worried that people are going to assume that because I wrote a fictional story whose message was interpreted in a certain way, people are going to think I personally hold those opinions. Which, especially as a socialist who shouldn't be tolerating any form or degree of racism, do you think a risk of unfortunate race-related implications in a (somewhat overtly) leftist story would be problematic?

Just got out of rehab. Feeling great. Nearly 40 days sober, feeling clear headed and even more interested in socialism. More motivated to get back out and organize again. Missed you all