Because China is capitalist, despite being formally led by a communist party. It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one. Socialism, by definition, requires social ownership of means of production, which is not the case in China; the term was appropriated and wrongfully used by US and several other countries to define economies with more state control and/or social policies, but this is simply not what socialism is.

Interestingly, China has entire ghost towns full of homes ready to accept people in - but, as in any capitalist economy, homes are seen as an investment, and state subsidies are low, pricing out the homeless. They have more than enough homes, they just chose to pursue a system that doesn’t make homes and homeless meet.

Debian one is best:

Anti-Semitism is hatred or discrimination of Jews based on their nationality.

No sane person holds anything against Jews, or supports violence against them. Some actual antisemites do, but they are in the tiny minority.

What people mostly stand against is the violence perpetrated by the Israeli army on the land of Palestine.

Israel has all the capacity to defend its citizens; yet Israeli army went way beyond defence or retaliation, into the territory of indiscriminate razing of everyone and everything, women, children, and sick, homes and hospitals. The state of Israel is accountable for enormous amounts of recorded human rights and law of war violations, and that’s the key reason nearly all of the international community took the side of defending Palestine. Should Palestine have the capacity and will to do the same to Israelis at the same scale, the international opinion would reverse.

However, as Israel has to gain public support, which is hard to do when you’re commiting genocide, the government and its allies (mainly US and UK, both of whom have strategic interests in Israeli expansion) decided to adopt the rhetoric of antisemitism as something that would virtually put you along the lines of Nazis should you try and challenge their notion. No, Nazis were actual antisemites and pursued to eliminate Jews; the international community wants to put an end to the genocide of Palestinian Arabs, while rejecting any hostility directed against Jews.

Wishing to eliminate one nationality to make safer room for the other, as well as “bringing in the correct values” by means of violence is a bloodthirsty and dangerous fantasy historically proven again and again to lead to terrible outcomes while multiplying suffering; yet by some it is understood for the very imagined and unrealistic scenario of falling Israel, but ignored while Palestine is actively razed by a hostile force of a much greater scale, ignoring all international treaties.

While not bitter in particular, it is disheartening to see yet another VC-funded social network gain traction, especially under the guise of freedom and decentralization it doesn’t fulfill in the slightest.

Sadly, marketing works, and people just flock to where the ads lead them. And the wheel of Internet history takes a turn over and over again, as people are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

The only right choice! Thanks!

Nice, thanks! So weird these tools are not commonly used - managing systemd remains one of the common terminal PITAs for everyone who doesn’t appreciate the Great Holy Terminal

Yes, that’s what I use.

It’s just that safety razors are often considered to be a thing of shaving enthusiasts, and if you go through that rabbit hole, you commonly go all the way.

Quite an interesting concept for genuine cartridge aficionados

It seems to depend on your face and skin. For me, single-bladed safety razors deliver a closer shave with less irritation compared to cartridge, and I experimented quite much with both.

Still, the cult of safety razors is sometimes overblown. Just pick what fits you best.

Doesn’t it mean there’s only 1 node NSA has to attack - your VPN?

Kinda renders Tor over it pointless.

Then we should define social left and right and keep it separate, and have one type of left and right as default (probably economic) or always mention it.

Because otherwise there’s a giant field for manipulations.

To my mind, there is nothing wrong with majority of people falling to some range. We can still make sense of it, looking at the levels of distinction that will ever be present.

Otherwise, we risk losing any common anchor, which is very important when we talk any point of statistics or want to trace dynamics and trends of political thought.

Taking some of the extreme examples, in USSR you would be “right-wing” for wishing to open your small business, and in modern US, you would be “left-wing” for wishing to make healthcare more affordable to the poor or have minorities heard. In fact, USSR was just full of people on the left, and US is full of people on the right, driven by propaganda, political technology, media, communications, genuine core beliefs etc.

Updating tools could be about bringing more clarity to some new formations and events, but it shouldn’t be about constantly redefining the base values.

Left and right are primarily economic, and we can only look at one axis at a time.

Otherwise, what you would call, idk, a devout Christian commune where people share everything? Left, because they’re equals, or right, because religion?

You married the right one.

Being excited about random things you admire is a sign of genuine and great love :)

On the other hand, if we continuously move goalposts, we risk changing definitions so much that being anti-slavery would be “explicitly left”, and as most people tend to stick close to “center”, whatever it could be, this can really change the political landscape.

I’d argue that, among the working class, the right wing of the political spectrum represents either the expectation/ambition to gain much more than others, or distrust of the left, commonly driven by following capitalist BS or having certain reservations or misunderstandings.

Which is not exactly why we should remain in solidarity with those who started figuring something out, not alienate them based on past views.

Give him a bit of time, he already started looking through some of the BS.

Hmm, interesting. Thanks!

Sure, fair point. In certain places, it might actually be harder to be white, even.

That’s just a general statement on my side, a kind of example.

It was super clear what the other commenter meant, and you’re just looking for conflict and thought policing everywhere I met you. Don’t.