You understand comments are public, so it makes no sense to lie about previous interactions, right?

In any case, yes, this explicitly is propaganda, specifically nazi propaganda. Circa 1930s, repackaged in the 1960s.

Tankies are the violent authoritarian

Define either of these words in a way that excludes any state that has ever or could ever exist. You can’t. Every single state is violent, and it is authoritarian. The entire concept of politics is to decide who has the monopoly of power, and for what it is used.

wing of socialists,

All socialists are violent because:

who believe liberals, landlords, bankers, intellectuals, etc. should be put to death. Stalin, Mao, etc.

Besides liberals and intellectuals, both of which are not including in the list of ‘victims’ of ‘violent’ socialists, all socialists should want the deaths of landlords and bankers.

They cannot be reformed, see the Kulaks who chose to kill themselves rather than pay their workers a wage and collectivize their land.

They’re kinda like fascists as far as loving violence and purging their undesirables except the boot is a different flavor:

The only possible way you could believe this is if you think all violence is bad, which makes you a naive, ignorant child; but the common reason to state this is to equivocate violence based on immutable characteristics, and violence based on mutable characteristics. Which is what nazis are want to do, in order to justify their unjustifable actions.

Practically every single adult on the planet accepts that violence is necessary. The only disagreement is to whom and to what extent said violence should be done. Pretending this isn’t the case is again either ignorance or intentional theatrical naivety.

“We will live in a utopia if you merely give us the power to kill everyone we dislike!”

What is your solution to people with unlimited wealth, no morality, and a psychotic devotion to harming society?

You can’t imprison them forever if you’re a poor country. You can’t send them to the fields to try to reform them, they are physically incapable of it at that point. You can’t let them live free, otherwise you will spend half your hard earned resources on defending against them from within and without.

That’s the nazi propaganda being dogwhistled, yes.

Tankie is just anyone to the left of burning orphans for warmth. It’s also a nazi dogwhistle.

Assuming the US, the only restrictions for the US presidency on paper is that you are 35 years old, you are a US citizen from birth, and have not previously held the office for two terms.

For local offices it’s *generally the same idea, with slight variations on age and sometimes residency.

In actuality it depends on how much money you put in versus how likable you are in general, for all elected offices in the US. Attractive people tend to fair better in elections than unattractive people; people with money tend to fair better than those without; people with strong long-standing (generational) local connections tends to fair better than those without. It also doesn’t hurt if you meet with business leaders that would be affected by your position in order to ‘make assurances’ they won’t be restricted or taxed.

To snark your question; the current sitting US president is a convicted felon, whom if it were any other class of person, would be in jail for life without parole. It hasn’t seemed to stop him.

You really have the reading comprehension of a child. There were farmers in agrarian China that could read better than you.

The term ‘violent authoritarian communism’ is an oxymoron and did not ever exist, it is an example of nazi propaganda. Just as the other things I listed, which are inherent to the beliefs that would be inferred from someone writing ‘violent authoritarian communism.’

I’m sorry AI has rotted your brain past the point of basic English skills, but I hope you get better in the future comrade so that some day you may be smart enough to be a socialist.

(I hate violent authoritarian communism e.g. Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, but not Marxism),

Sure, the simplest explanation is that if you think Stalin was unelected or had unlimited power, or that Mao was a dictator for whom everyone contemporary to him unquestioningly followed, you fell for nazi propaganda. Stagnation breeds fascism, and when nazis cannot win, they will settle for stagnation; the easiest way to foster stagnation is to say that the extreme left and extreme right are the same, so we should pick a third way, a reasonable, moderate, centrist approach, that just so happens to set up economic and social tensions that can easily ferment into and have clever nazis foment fascism.

The Red Scare, which is what most of you tend to base your propagandized version of history off of without even realizing it, had exactly one purpose. Protect capitalism, and foment fascism. It has done immeasurable harm in the US especially, where it is responsible for more deaths directly than the totality of all wars fought by the US on every side combined, but more harm has been done to the minds of those that will repeat the premise of this propaganda, the core ideas, as if they were their own conclusions after reasonably and logically reviewing the ‘evidence.’

To tie it from ‘obvious the fascist CIA worked to take freedom and power away from the American populace on behalf of the capitalist class,’ to ‘the CIA are nazis;’ one merely has to consider the timing of Operation Paperclip, and the nazi sympathizers in the US government that were against fighting the war from the start; many of whom curiously later either joined the agency or were a part of oversight committees on the agency.

Yeah you can definitely do the physical act of saying that you love nazi propaganda while disavowing hitler. It doesn’t make your position logical nor does it make you seem like less of a nazi.

Yeah, anti-communists tend to love hitler, you don’t have to repeat yourself so much.

Most people that do legitimate emergency preparedness programs tend to only go two weeks out, because unless you have specific geographic restrictions, any emergency that lasts longer than two weeks is essentially going to end the world.

While .world does tend to block a lot of instances, watering down would in this case be a problem with over-federation. .world tends to host the most popular communities, which then is a self-feeding cycle that increasingly centralizes user share on .world, which then produces more content than native communities, then making .world communities more popular, and so on.

It produces much more average (to American and Euro-centric tastes) posts, while also being the defacto instance/community for a particular topic. Watering down what could be much more specialized topic posting and discussions.

You’re asking this on .world, the normie instance. .world is the watered down version of lemmy.

But to answer your question, yes, ideally all people should move to foss versions of corpo software, if only to devalue digital data trading and advertisement space. Yes that means more instances going further right wing, and some instances choosing to no longer federate with the larger, more ‘normie’ ones; but the overall good to society is worth the cost.

Legally, as long as you have a social security number, as in you know the number, there’s no problem. Driving can be hard but most of these people have lived and worked within 5 miles of where they were born for hundreds of years now. But besides that you don’t need your ID for much.

It’s not a model, it’s a guaranteed constitutional right that has been upheld a LOT of times in the supreme court over the last two centuries. You cannot have a poll tax, period. In any possible way, shape or form. It cannot cost a single cent to vote. Ever. Under any possible circumstances, without a significant constitutional amendment. It cannot be changed via law, and any laws passed that do require ID but do not make IDs free are undeniably unconstitutional based on 200 years of precedent.

So we find ourselves trapped in a loop, because voting is an enshrined right.

It’s also… just not needed. The only way you can register to vote is by proving your identity and citizenship. Using the free process that exists in every state and most US territories (not for federal elections in the territories unless they overlap with a state).

Answering in good faith as someone recovering from homelessness, knowing this post is so severely downvoted and will probably be removed or ignored.

In your humble opinion, are the majority of the homeless people responsible for the situation they are in?

No.

For this and the rest of your questions there are 5 main types of ‘homeless’ and all categories below often find themselves into multiple of these categories the longer they are homeless.

Archetype 1, The Victim: Nearly all homeless technically fall into this category, but I’m going to define this as you did, ‘victim of circumstances outside of their control.’ All homeless start out like this. Either from being born mentally ill and no longer having care, losing a job, losing a house, running away from abusive parents, running away from other domestic violence, being a part of the foster care system, or getting addicted to drugs (most commonly through the opioid epidemic.) But to further clarify and deal with annoying people:

Archetype 2, The Mentally ill: American society specifically is not built to handle those that cannot help themselves. It is so violently against the chronically ill and mentally ill, that the majority of those suffering from severe illness of any type will end up homeless at some point during their lives (including ‘couch surfing’ as homeless). Most homeless people will eventually become mentally ill if they stay on the streets longer than six months. Given the lack of available reasonable resources to get out of homelessness, this is a large minority of The Victims.

Archetype 3, The Druggie: Drug addiction is a disease, a disease you are either genetically predisposed to, or not. It can start as a choice, but does not always start as a choice. Stopping is not a choice most can physically make. This, like all addictions, will only end when it is ended. Barring arguably divine intervention only hitting rock bottom and staying there can truly ‘cure’ someone of drug addiction. So once they reach the end of their grace with their loved ones and friends, they’re still alive, but cannot maintain enough free floating cash to maintain a home (if they could even qualify)

Archetype 4, The Victim, but old: In many parts of the country you cannot get a job past a certain age, you will be discriminated against. And it will be done automatically in a plausibly deniable way. This gap usually exists between 55 and 62. This is the age you are most like to become homeless for the first time as of 2020. You get laid off, you get fired, you get constructively let go, you don’t have social security, you don’t have a good enough body for general labor, you will be discriminated against severely by pretty much everyone hiring… and then you end up homeless. And until you get your social security, you will stay homeless, as older people (before social security age) are usually at the bottom of the list for grants (specifically older white men have the least available options and programs to help them out of homelessness).

Archetype 5, (Rare) (Epic) (Legendary) The Actually Prefers Homeless: Easily the 0.001% of homeless people. These are never the ones you have ever seen on a broadcast or news report, except when they rarely get caught. They don’t and won’t ever fully fit into society, as they fundamentally reject the concept. Everyone else can and has been cured before, this is the only archetype that ‘deserves’ to be homeless, because it is genuinely the only thing they want in life.