Oh there's plenty of room for someone who is informed to get angry and rightly ridicule people who deserve it.

the opinion on the topic you are not informed about displays your values and having it might be beneficial to you.

And it might be detrimental to you just as easily. There's no way to know which without being informed, but an ignorant opinion based on "values" (aka vibes and what you want to be true rather than what is true) is more likely to hurt you or others in the long run. Just as being a racist bigot who has a wrong opinion about people of color might find that holding their racist opinion is immediately beneficial to themselves if they're in a similarly bigoted community, being a bigot is ultimately harmful for reasons I would hope wouldn't need to be explained.

An example would be a parent who doesn't want any gender-related issue to be discussed in the school.

Yet their uninformed opinion is harmful. Gender issues are inevitably part of our world and learning about them will not only prepare children to have an understanding of them that their ignorant parent lacks and help make the world safer and more livable for everyone as a result, but if that child themselves turns out to be gender stereotype non-conforming, then learning about those issues will help them better understand themselves and potentially save them from much of the misery inflicted on them by an ignorant populous.

Most of the people I've known who were into anime were women, some of them are even anime artists. In the 00s, I only knew about anime because a girlfriend of mine (platonic) was into it and tried to get me into it and I thought it was mostly something that only interested other girls. I was aware of Sailor Moon and knew girls who had posters of it in their rooms, but never knew any males who admitted to liking it so hearing that anime is thought of as a guy thing is still strange to me.

Hexbear is mostly white. So maybe don't use it.

I'm shocked that drug dealing is coming up here as an example of criminality in so many comments. It's very literally only criminal behavior because the us made it criminal behavior to crush poor people, radicals, and minorities, and most people know that

I'm hoping that most people here understand that and are using it as an example of criminality only as a way to talk about lumpen as a class that relates to the means of production differently than most of the rest of the proletariat (but I don't know, I also wouldn't have thought there would be so many leftists who seem to think that sex work isn't work or that no forms of it could possibly exist under communism). But either way, what I do find shocking about it is how many people here think that they have less revolutionary potential than the rest of the US proletariat which is extremely right wing. Like the comment "drug runners aren't gonna help us do communism dude." Well, they're hell of a lot more likely to than all the reactionary regular proletarians who are Trump and Biden law and order supporters.

You highlight the work aspect of sex work as if I’m saying it’s not work, or to say that it‘s work only quantitatively different from manufacturing goods, delivering goods, etc. I’m not saying sex work is immoral or impure or condemning it based on moral judgement.

Ok, maybe I was wrong about what you were saying. Do you think sex work is work, then?

Someone may sleep with many members of society and be supported in their needs by the community through the immense wealth of the people under communism, but the support of their needs would not be predicated on their sleeping with members of the community.

Would the needs of any other members of that society be predicated on the work they do?

And their activity would necessarily not contribute to the welfare of the whole community but only persons selected.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Surely making sure the members of a community are able to lead happy and fulfilling lives is contributing to the welfare of the whole community. Human sexuality is undeniably an important aspect (for the majority of people) of a person's over all sense of happiness and fulfillment. There being members of the community that help ensure everyone else in the community has that sense of fulfillment, members of the community who are explicitly willing and happy to provide it as a service (labor), is a positive, even necessary contribution to community wellbeing.

Replacing cash with goods doesn’t make prostitution not sex work or change the relations at play.

I never implied otherwise. I wasn't the person who said "some people will always be willing to exchange goods or labour for sex regardless of economic or political system." But they are correct, and you are not when you call that "bourgeois philosophy" and "utter nonsense." Even in a system where that kind of tit-for-tat exchange is unnecessary, it is absurd to say that it will never happen.

People misunderstand communism, due to a misunderstanding of its relation to early communal society, as some sort of return to the end stage of historical communities where everyone lives in common low development and individual exchange happens under the table.

That may be, but that is not an error I'm making. As I briefly mentioned in a response to another comment, there will always be people who are unable or unwilling to form the kind of relationships usually required for sexual activity and thus sexual fulfillment. There will also always be people who choose to develop skills that help provide people with that kind of fulfillment sans any other form of relationship. You may say that such a thing is so different from the kind of purely transactional relationship we traditionally characterize as prostitution that it may as well not be called prostitution. Fine. But the same thing can be said for countless other forms of labor that people do under capitalism to survive, but that under communism would just be "something I enjoy doing," that is still labor and provides a service to society. Like an actor who enjoys giving performances that provide other people with entertainment (as one of countless other possible examples).

What percentage of prostitutes across history do you believe fit into a definition that isn't characterized by exploitation?

What percentage of plumbers across history do you believe fit into a definition that isn't characterized by exploitation? Sex work is work. Period. Just like other work, it can be done because a person enjoys it, but under capitalism (or other modes of production that exploit workers) it will always involve exploitation. If you want to define prostitution as something that always involves exploitation, ok fine, but then you also have to separate that out from sex work, which absolutely does not inherently require exploitation and most certainly would still exist even if all economic coercion were eradicated (that is, under communism rather than capitalism).

Under communism (a classless, stateless, moneyless society), the economic and class relations that force people to perform sexual labor as a means of subsistence won't be present.

(Emphasis above is mine). Under communism, the economic and class relations that force people to perform any labor as a means of subsistence won't be present.

People will still have sex, but nobody will be coerced into having sex in exchange for food, shelter, or medical care.

No shit. There will still be plumbers too, but they won't be coerced into it in exchange for food, shelter, or medical care. Almost all of your arguments so far can be applied exactly the same to any number of other forms of labor.

Prostitution won't be an occupational category under communism because the purpose of labor under communism is about fulfilling social need.

So finally we get to some reasoning (flawed though it is) for why sex work would be different than any other work. You think that sex work doesn't fulfill a social need. Sexual fulfillment is a social need. There will always be people who find it difficult to find partners due to all kinds of possible scenarios (including having no time to build a relationship due to dedicating all of it to other interests or necessary labor). And there will similarly always be people willing to provide that, people who have dedicated their time to become skilled at providing that. Refusing to recognize them as fulfilling a social need is simply being sex-negative and it's always shocking to me that there are still leftists who don't understand this.

Even the so called criminal element isn't properly considered in the traditional view of lumpen. At least from what I've seen, there is almost always a failure to understand that large swathes of the lumpenproletariat are simply parts of the proletariat that had no economic recourse, lacking even the ability to survive by legally selling their labor, and became lumpen by necessity. Consider redlined ethnic minorities who are denied even bare minimum legal employment and resort to drug dealing as the only means of survival. Many of them put the money they make directly back into their destitute communities. They absolutely have revolutionary potential and some of them have class consciousness on a level far beyond that of the vast majority of legal working proletariat.

You act like it's blatantly obvious that commodities would exist under communism and mock the person who pointed it out to you, yet you vehemently deny that something else just as obvious as the existence of commodities will also still very much exist and have a place under communism, calling it utter nonsense and requiring "bourgeois philosophy" without any explanation. That something else involves sex, though. Hmm. Funny how work that involves sex always brings out a specific type with an angry and reactionary axe to grind.

At least u/porcupine can make a reasonable case by redefining prostitution as something other than and separate from sex work rather than denying the legitimacy and validity of sex work.

To imply that abortion is the cure for poverty or that not having access to it is the cause is indeed false and a typical liberal refusal to look at the broader systems. But to deny how much unwanted pregnancy, along with the health risks and increased mortality rate that come with it, the burden on poor communities to provide adequate care for children when they are already overworked, etc, all contribute to and worsen poverty is absurd, and just as much a failure to recognize material reality.

Liberals and even well meaning progressives will sometimes fall into the trap of pitching abortion and birth control as a part of the solution to poverty.

But access to abortion and BC does help alleviate poverty. When women are unable to choose to not have unwanted pregnancies and children, it does create a serious strain on them and their community, exacerbating poverty and everything associated with it. That isn't some idealist liberal delusion, it's very well documented reality.

Edit, adding:

I honestly think if birth control was only available for colored people then conservatives wouldn't have a problem with it. Abortion too

It's just the opposite. One of the main reasons reactionaries tend to be so anti-abortion is because forcing women to have unwanted children helps to perpetuate poverty, locking communities into a cycle of impoverishment they can't escape. Meanwhile, those who are rich and white have access to abortions whether they're illegal or not, which is by design. If a rich old gammon-chud's daughter gets pregnant and she doesn't want to keep it, he's likely to help her quietly get an abortion even as he ensures people of color never have that kind of opportunity. Wealthy white people want (and generally have) the freedom to do whatever they want while they simultaneously limiting the freedoms of poor BIPOC people, all to maintain or strengthen the white supremacist system.

There are links to alternative front ends in a comment below. Also, old.reddit is working OK for me without needing to login. You're right, NSFW old.reddit is requiring login now.

There might be a few outside of here that know it, but they write essays about how George actually must have meant it to be the other way around to reassure themselves.

China has recently made positive strides on a number of issues like LGBTQ rights, so there's no reason not to hope they can also start moving in the correct direction when it comes to phasing out animal cruelty and meat consumption as well, as they continue to economically surpass the reactionary west. Their dedication to addressing climate change will also at some point demand the recognition that using animals as a major source of food is unsustainable.

Wait, what's worse? For who? I'm not totally sure what you're saying here but as someone who has survived by doing sex work, who has been repeatedly sexually exploited*, and who has also been more than what I think most would just call exploited, I would not say that any of that was worse for me than being murdered on a factory farm. Can we just agree that exploitation and the objectification or commodification of sentient life is very bad and needs to be abolished?

*(Side note to make clear that sex work is not inherently exploitational either but that's a different ball of wax.)

Part of what's funny about the video is that he was trying to showcase a software update Tesla released, the purpose of which was specifically for making it safe to close the trunk on your fingers. He tests it with a cucumber and banana and it actually looks reasonably safe but then he does the test with his finger. Not only does the test fail but the trunk won't open so he's stuck there shocked in obvious pain and can't get his finger back out.

It doesn't actually break but he shows it afterward and it's clearly smashed with bruises and a decent sized cut from the trunk's edge. He comes back and has some excuse from tesla about it being because he tested with veggies first and the software thought he was trying to shut it with something blocking it because of the previous repeated attempts. He actually starts to test it again with his finger saying "This time it should hurt way less..." but he can't do it, he keeps pulling back right before it closes in what I might have said was finally a tiny bit of sense, only it's an instinctive reaction and he can't help it. He concludes that we'll just have to trust it from the last banana test.

Here it is if anyone wants to watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA55B1kobnw

Nah, contrary to the belief of some weirdos, poking fun at people for their supernatural woo idealism is providing a positive service.

Incredibly hurtful? Cowardly? Come on. That's the same as a chud crying about being pasted in a bad light onto a wojak comic. It's a dumb meme, you should be happy your pfp made it onto one that someone made for a niche leftist website to chuckle at. I have seen you tear into liberals for their bullshit beliefs (which I enjoyed watching), and I wouldn't have expected you'd be so weirdly sensitive to being on the other side of that equation. I think most here would take this as being barely more than a comradely joshing. You weren't even the prime character in it, your pfp (pfp for christ sakes!) was pasted over the microphone of the original pic. But given all that, the fact you got this twisted up about it makes me feel like it was all the more a good thing to do. You should take this as an opportunity to examine why you did find something so mild as this "incredibly hurtful" but more importantly why your fellow communists would be jokingly comparing you to the current poster child for woo lunacy.

As for what is comparable, well you both believe in nonsense woo that would make many spirit crystal chiropractors blush and you both have come up with absurd justifications for it. You have this strange fixation that I was calling you a zionist when it was pretty clear that had nothing to do with it, and the comparison was around the nutty unsubstantiated beliefs. In fact I didn't know the other person in the picture even was a zionist, but I did know she uses her "spiritualism" as a justification for the dippy new-age version of white supremacy. I think you just focus on the zionism part because you're mad at me for making a mediocre niche meme picture and you saying that I'm calling you a zionist is a way to try to lash out. But nah, I wasn't calling you a zionist, I was calling you a nut. So please enough with the hyperfixation on zionism. By putting your pfp next to a picture of her, I didn't call you a zionist any more than I called you someone who appropriates black culture by wearing dreadlocks, and I think you actually know that.

You happen to be lucky in that despite adamantly believing in wacky things that there is zero proof for and has been demonstrably proven false, you still arrived at the correct conclusions about politics, capitalism, imperialism etc., which I think most here would agree is by far what's important. But again, I think you got there in spite of having some massive brainworms about the supernatural. Having wacky batty woo beliefs isn't a crime but it is one hundred percent on the table fair game to be made fun of, and it needs to be. Because uncritical belief in magic is not something that should be present in a healthy society, the society that we as communists and materialists should aim for, where we examine reality with a scientific mindset to come as close as we can to modeling reality instead of making up just-so stories that fit our conception of how we wish things were instead of how they are. It is only through brutal honesty with ourselves and how the world works (as opposed to how we wish it worked, like with magic telekinetic, telepathic or prophetic powers) that we can find the way towards true human flourishing. Going the route of ghosts, demons, telekinesis, astral projection, crystal powers, star seeds, or whatever, it's all different facets of the same bunkum and it is anathema to a materialist conception of reality (in whatever way you want to define materialism, strictly Marxist, more broadly philosophical, but any meaningful definition of materialism).

This Shanin person (who tbh I didn't know existed until the thread here about her and that chud singer) has also followed this path of going down the rabbit hole of unsubstantiated spiritualist nonsense that "makes sense to her" despite all these things she believes being obvious, provable bullshit. She arrived at much more odious conclusions about people and supremacy, and that's not surprising. I know the concept of the "slippery slope" is often abused, but in this case it's very fitting and actually happens a lot. I've watched it happen with people, the new age woo to white supremacy pipeline. It's not uncommon that it is tangential to Joe Rogan. It's not always a bad trajectory, but it often is. When you start believing in this kind of antiscience wishful thinking, you can follow it to all sorts of conclusions, literally anything imaginable, including the truly horrible and antihuman. I think of the esoteric alien origins horseshit that many of the inner core nazis made foundational to their beliefs. I think about the batshit mormon beliefs that were based on the whims of a known charlatan con artist, and how interwoven all of that became with the white supremacist "security" apparatus of the US, the most evil organizations that ever existed. Magic underwear is innocuous and even funny, but it's part of a sort of larger complex of beliefs, a structure founded on woo supernatural mysticism, self referential and self reinforcing, that is used to justify some of the most heinous crimes. A failure of critical thinking, which in my opinion is a form of a failure of self crit, is dangerous in the long run, and belief in magic is without a doubt a failure of critical thinking.

There, does that meet your criteria for being "said it to your face"? I don't see how anything else I posted before wasn't saying it to your face. I don't even know what subtweeting is, as I fortunately never got sucked into that brand of social media. But stop implying I was doing something underhanded or sneaky. That's absurd. I made a dumb meme pic and posted it where you and anyone else could see. Just like with the zionism thing (that didn't happen) you keep twisting me into this strange caricature that has nothing to do with... well, anything, and assigning to me these nonsensical intentions that simply aren't there. It's weird, comrade! Don't do that! Now, if you want to take my pfp and paste it to compare me to some scientism nerd like ND Tyson, or even a bigger asshole like Dick Dawkins, that would be a fair reciprocal and I'd have to laugh even. But I wouldn't suddenly think you were, for example, accusing me of SA just because they were (I think?) I definitely wouldn't come back and call you a coward and make up all these off the wall accusations about your intentions.

Whatever though. I feel like I've said my piece and I'm pretty sure also answered your questions, mostly by trying to straighten out the misconceptions about me you glomed onto. I know this was long, but that's mostly because I think you're still a decent poster and commie, so I'm taking the time to lay it out there. If you were just some random chud which I'd assume you were if this thread was all I'd ever seen you post, I'd roll my eyes, PPB you and move on. Even though the hostility you assumed I had wasn't there in my original image post nor this comment, I do feel like your response with demands of posting "to your face" and calling me cowardly, etc. really was hostile. And I don't like that. So this is the end of the conversation at my end. I expect you'll respond, and I hope it is about things I actually said this time. But I won't know. Tomorrow is my scheduled day to touch grass and be away from the internet entirely, and I won't be touching this pile of internet drama with a ten meter pole. Again, I've said my piece, I went into great detail specifically to answer your hostile questioning, now I'm disengaging.

What are you talking about, no they aren't. Besides, when did it become not ok on hexbear to treat harmful and false ideas with the condescension and disdain they deserve? You do know about the Posting Policy Bulletin at the bottom of every hexbear page, I hope. Also, telling someone to relax is pretty condescending, just fyi.