all 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 60 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Maybe not Franklin. He’s on record as preferring older ladies.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    Especially Jefferson. Not Franklin though. Benjamin Franklin in a letter to a young man listed 8 reasons why an older mistress was preferable to a younger one.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Also people thought Washington was gay so...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (8 children)

    Who did? He was married to Martha with no accusations of homosexuality.

    Also not really sure how this is a response to what that guy said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Never had kids with her and she was a widow.

    Is where it started. You’ll find various opinions on it/his inner circle.

    Potentially he wouldn’t be interested in raping little girls.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

    Maybe but it's a mitigating factor towards traveling to the island in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    The island is a symptom, not a cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Still relevant to being mentioned in the files.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Well, okay, but the main point of why it's a problem being mentioned in the files is that it means you are, at least to some extent, a supporter of sexual violence. And probably even paedophilia.

    What I understand the post is trying to say is that these guys were all doing the same kind of horrible shit. It's trying to hint that USA might have been rotten to the core right from the beginning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago

    Founding fondlers :kelly:

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago

    ESPECIALLY JEFFERSON 

  • source
  • [+] 50 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    If this happens to an international tennis star, imagine what happens to young, poor girls with little support

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Not all. Pretty sure John Adams would not have been.

    Hamilton and Jefferson would probably have written most of them though, about each other.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think they would have been called the Epstein files though. It probably would have been called the Franklin files. All of this stuff seems like Ben Franklin's jam.

    No I don't think Ben Franklin would have done it for espionage or spying purposes I think he would have just done it for the love of the game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I agree, Ben probably would have indulged and not cared about using it to his advantage.

    Hamilton and Jefferson were absolutely cold blooded in their political pursuits and use of published letters. They would have used any opportunity to cut the other down. Maybe mutually assured destruction would have stayed their hands on that particular indulgence, though Hamilton did famously out his own affair to clear himself of the embezzlement allegation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Franklin would have, for sure, but I'm pretty sure the rest of them would have just kept raping their own slaves.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago*
    [–] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Inb4 conservatives change from

    "Mary was a teenager"

    to

    "The Founding Fathers were pedophiles too"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    I get that a lot of this linked article is written to (correctly) change the narrative around slavery erasure but some of it delves into baseless hyperbole that can't be anything but counter productive.

    For example:

    Evidence suggests that sexual abuse of slaves was so fundamental to chattel slavery that it’s reasonable to assume any histories of “kind” slave owners are complete fabrications designed to preserve the legacy of the masters.

    That is either playing fast and loose with wording or an absolutely incredible claim requiring incredible proof.

    On one hand, the "kind" slave owner is always a fabrication because the act of owning slaves is inherently immoral and reprehensible. This view makes the claim a borderline platitude; perpetuating an institution that enables rapists is very obviously unkind.

    On the latter interpretation, you're claiming that rape was so universal that any slave owner was almost certainly a rapist (especially if they claimed they weren't). This would require some sweeping evidence, think studies on the demographics of mixed race slaves or on medical records tied to sexual assaults.

    So what evidence follows? Excerpts from Frederick Douglas giving second hand accounts of rape and of Harriet Jacobs giving her first hand account. Nothing that incriminates slave owners broadly beyond Douglas's phrasing "...in [rape] cases not a few,...".

    I don't even deny that the evidence might exist, and I would love to see it brought to light if it does. But the thing about slavery, and specifically the USA's commercial cotton slavery: it's fucking awful enough if you just list verifiable facts without aggrandizing. Even if everything in this article were true, it doesn't move the needle much farther beyond the baseline of American slave ownership.

    If you're going to broadly claim "America's founding fathers were sex traffickers that raped children" then please, name names! Bring receipts! You can't open with...

    These facts are not debatable. [Child sex trafficking] happened.

    ...and then lay out a single link rehashing that Thomas Jefferson was a massive piece of shit. What do we know about the other 54+ Founding Fathers?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    baseless hyperbole

    an absolutely incredible claim requiring incredible proof

    I do not think it is much of a stretch to think that there were a fuckton of rapists in times past, judging by the fuckton of rapists in contemporary time. To be honest, I think it is awful of you to assume that men in positions of power do not rape, when we have so much evidence that they do (and please do not talk to me about "not all men rape", because that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about systemic issues).

    Boys at 16 years old rape sleeping girls, because they can. Film directors and businessmen (unsuccessful ones as Trump as well) rape women and children, because they can. Slave owners raped their slaves, because they could. This is a question of power dynamics.

    Bring receipts!

    No.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Finding it offensive to expect evidence for any such accusation is absolutely asinine. What a stupid fucking conclusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Do you disagree on my remark that Trump is a pedofile rapist or only that about the slave owners that also happened to be founding fathers for a genocidal empire?

    There exists ample evidence of how widespread rape is today and throughout history. I do not see why you give slave owners the benefit of doubt in this regard, seeing as they had a blatant and fundamental disregard for their fellow human beings, in their eyes property.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (33 children)

    How many MLs reading this are Americans?

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (31 children)
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (30 children)

    Ok, cool. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. How does this post make you feel? You're in the overlap of the targeter and the targeted.

    As a show of good faith, let's commiserate. I agree that our "founding fathers" weren't good people by today's standards, but I'm in the camp that their ideas of classical liberalism were fine. I feel shame that our country is built on genocide, slavery and exploitation, but at the same time, I want to hold our current leadership to a higher standard and ahem prosecute them. I understand that you don't agree with classical liberalism, and that's fine, I'm not looking to pick a fight. But I imagine you feel some confusion and conflict as I do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Respectfully, your position doesn't make sense. Liberalism brought us here. Liberalism was built on top of the slave trade, of colonialism, of plunder. This system produces people like Epstein and Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)

    With all due respect, that's sounds like leaps of logic, like saying he scientific theory leads directly to and only to nuclear warfare.

    Does classical liberalism only lead to slave trade/colonialism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Do you know how many enlightenment figures were wildly racist, how many of them profited from slavery while pretending to stand for freedom? Scientific racism is a direct evolution from this.

    As for whether liberalism now would lead to more of the same, of course it would, it has no built-in method for people to not be exploited, to discourage greed, to stop genocide, etc. How would you suggest we prevent any and all of this within liberalism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I've been thinking for a long time that any large-scale organization will lead to greed, corruption, injustice, et al. It's only since I've been reading about ML that I learned I lean anarchist. Vanguard parties sound like a bad idea to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    My observations and intuition so far is that, the larger the organization, the more that its injustices outweigh its benefits. Power corrupts, and people always have a way of justifying their own actions to themselves, no matter how unjust or "evil" they may be. As a population, I'm not confident in any one person, or any one small party, to wield the broad authority that a large government has.

    I dunno. The more introspective I get the more I think of Oceania in 1984. Ingsoc is purported to be socialist but it's still highly stratified, and the higher classes wield their power in the most violent and dehumanizing way possible. I fear that that's the result of not just socialist organizations, but any organization that becomes large enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Sure, I'll cop to that level of idealism. I think the "human condition" is a real thing we've inherited from our evolutionary forebears, and we're constantly fighting against it. Heck, my main complaint started out as seeing Lemmy MLs as tribalistic to their own detriment. Even if it isn't truly universal, I don't think any form of political organization can permanently overcome that.

    Also, yeah, I know that fiction doesn't describe reality, just the author's perspective of reality (learned that from Ayn Rand, 🤣 ). Didn't know that Orwell was anti-semitic (nightmare ick), but the message I took from 1984 was anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian, not necessarily anti-communist. I was taught that the "soc" in Ingsoc was a lie, just as in the Ministry of Truth produced lies and the Ministry of Love produced cruelty. Anyway.

    I also want to reference some things I've heard about the USSR and the PRC, but I feel the canned response is that it's all Western propaganda, and I don't see a productive outcome of that line of conversation. I have some observations after reading Three Body Problem and my partner's fandom for MXTX's light novels, but that's very anecdotal.

    At any rate, I got more of the insight I wanted about Lemmy MLs, and you as always give me a lot to think about, Cowbee <3 I always appreciate your time and patience.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Are we talking about liberalism or neoliberalism? My understanding is that liberalism is, ostensibly, grounded in enlightenment ideals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago

    That is effectively the case in history, and I don’t think OP is denying that, but the philosophical basis is more about individual human rights. I think OP is asking how Americans feel about how far from those ideals we have strayed, which is completely off the fucking map. For my part, I question the cost to society that prioritizing individual liberties like property rights has had, but I don’t think that capitalism itself is inextricably linked to “classical liberalism”, and Americans tend to insist that it is. It’s a confusion born out of ignorance and propaganda.

    The “Founding Fathers” were shit people, but the constitution as an evolution of enlightenment ideals is a pretty sound document, we just haven’t lived up to the doctrine. The same could be said about communism as practiced by authoritarian regimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Hey, i appreciate the chillness and will try to respond in kind. I can understand feeling conflicted, but personally I severed any emotional connection with this country several years ago after I could no longer reconcile my shrinking self-conception as "an american" with my growing self-conception as a human being. It's not just that they were seperate; they were fully att odds with each other in a very physical, material way. If I recognize that there is no deep fundamental difference between my humanity and anyone else's, and if I consider myself part of the human family, I can't ignore the devastation that this military-economic-cultural thing we call America has wrought on our family. If I see myself as a cell in the body of nature, I can't help but look at the effects of America and see it for a cancer. That doesn't mean everyone in it is "bad" or "evil" of course, and i personally don't believe in these concepts to begin with. The reality is more messy and complex than any quick moral assessment can say, but at the highest level the practical assessment is simple: America is a boat anchor on the neck of humanity. It's military enforces an economic system that's killing the world, the ideology it spreads is parochial and antisocial, and we who live inside it are both it's victims and it's accomplices, forced to work our lives away for rich pedophiles while economically supporting atrocities on other people elsewhere.

    The desire to hold leaders to a higher standard is totally understandable, but the question of what they lead renders it moot in this case. American leaders are people who sit at the helm of a world-spanning death machine, and no decision they make, no matter how high-minded and well intentioned, can change it's basic function, which is to churn human, plant and animal life into profit. Like Darwinism, the evolutionary pressures of capitalist imperial politics actively selects for these wretched people, and against anyone who might even try to rein in it's excesses, even as ineffective that would be. The only way to hold the leaders of this system to a higher standard is to hold the system to a higher standard, and the highest standard this system can realistically be held to is to be dismantled and replaced with something capable of producing stable and equitable results. Capitalism itself is like a nanobot Grey Goo apocalypse: instead of breaking down everything to produce more nanobots it breaks everything down into profit. I consider it an existential threat to life on earth,and anything that upholds capitalism or stands in the way of it's destruction to be an acceptable loss for the preservation of the biosphere.

    I hope I haven't gone on too long, but I feel that gets to the heart of it. For the love of humanity and all living things, I've forsaken any attachment to this predatory so-called society.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    I'm guessing I got downvoted because I said I'm fine with classical liberalism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 9 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    I'm also looking for a reason to believe that the MLs here aren't a bunch of angsty edgelords who just use ML as an excuse for lashing out. You definitely seem like the rare exception, Cowbee, and I appreciate you for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    i used to mock my woke older sister when i was young for espousing ml perspectives because i assumed it was just angsty teenage edgelord know-it-all behavior and it prevented me to learning about leftism until i was middle aged.

    i've learned that others characterize mls as you've done; so it's clear that it's a social phenomenon; and i wonder if this sort of characterization is leveraged somehow to social engineer americans away from socialism, since the epstein files suggest global scale mass social engineering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I can't assess if I think this way because of American indoctrination right now, but y'all just seem so mean and angry.

    Everything I see come out of ML instances here has the same sneering, tribal in-group-good-out-group-bad attitude that I see not only MAGA people post, but also what I've seen queer people post that drive "normies" away and push them into conservative rabbit holes.

    I understand y'all are frustrated with liberals and liberalism and the capital-W West. I agree that the injustices of these systems is sickening. But these memes are being broadcast outside any echo chamber, and they attack individuals personally, who also use very different terminology.

    Lemmy's MLs have terrible optics and, frankly, I think that's hurting your cause a lot more than MLs seem to care. You'll never get their support and they'll resist you and your cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    ... y’all just seem so mean and angry...

    It's fascinating that you chose these words because Republican strategists focused on "nice" and "friendly" aesthetics to make Trump win and I'm wondering if this vindicates their strategy. (You can see this in Trump's penchant for labeling his enemies as "angry" or "nasty" rather than using any sort of substantive arguments like he used in the past before running for president).

    And frustrated is putting it very lightly. The likes of the state department and the icc have been confirming Marxist talking points for decades but liberals dismiss it as nothing more than unsubstantive conspiracy theory nonetheless; literally making things worse while patting themselves on the back for being the "adults in the room" as a result.

    The Epstein illuminati reveled in their ability to control both maga and "lesser evil" liberals and they're successfully getting the entire world to blame Russia for a mossad kompromat operation despite the American government admitting that this has been happening .... in writing .... Again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Republican strategists focused on “nice” and “friendly” aesthetics to make Trump win

    I don't... this is so far removed from my experiences that I'm confused. I see that Trump supporters like that Trump is an aggressive, foul-mouthed bully. His supporters found it appealing that he isn't a run-of-the-mill placating, conciliatory politician that Washington tends to produce; he wields whatever leverage he has like a barbed-wire baseball bat and calls it negotiating. Anyway.

    The rest of your post I think I agree with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    We deal with a lot of people telling us all sorts of bs and speaking over us when we talk about historical facts that we actually researched, or even our own lived experiences for those of us who live through invasions, coups and so on.

    We see the genocides going on right now, and when we sit down to learn more we find out that there have been endless such cases perpetuated by the same capitalist class for capitalist interests, we learn about the torture, the humiliation, the meticulous extermination of whole peoples with their languages and cultures gone forever, just because their labor or their land has value that capitalists wanted to extract and plunder. I'm too young to have lost someone personally, but when my parents were children we had a US backed dictatorship that disappeared children like them, alongside leftists, liberals, indigenous people... The US taught our military torture methods and bribed them to keep going, and when they were finally gone we inherited a fucking DEBT that we literally can't repay you, and because we can't repay you we need to keep getting loans from your country, with strings attached, like more austerity, as our people die homeless and cold. And if we succeed to get a proper socialist government while playing by the rules that your government imposes, they'll just coup us, like they did to Salvador Allende. Surely you see why we're angry now. It's not personal. If you don't wanna talk to us, you can opt out, it's whatever to us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I 99.5% agree and sympathize. I know how lucky I am that the biggest existential threats I've faced are depression and joblessness, and a lot of my friends are much less lucky. I don't know how to fight for them while also making sure they're safe.

    The remaining half a percent is when you say it's not personal. A lot of these memes and a lot of comments I get from MLs seem quite personal, treating "liberals" as a monolith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That's just because you lack understanding. Liberals are "treated as a monolith" because each individual on their own is irrelevant compared to the systems and superstructures they uphold. You're stuck in the individualist view which is largely unhelpful for serious or proper political analysis which the jokes and memes then flow from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I don't agree but I understand. I find it extremely frustrating that it's so difficult to organize my fellow Americans to respond to the injustices we all see and agree on. That said I'm not at all convinced to give up whatever individualism I have. I don't see individualism/collectivism as so black-and-white, or even one-dimensional.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    Every Western country is a mix of capitalism and socialism. The US absolutely should move towards the socialism end but capitalism won't vanish, most importantly because it's detractors never offer a viable alternative.

    Pretty much a guarantee that a big chunk of people wasting time and resources on an internet discussion board are in some way benefitting from capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    So Marxist socialism and classical liberalism are mutually exclusive?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Any kind of socialism is mutually exclusive from classical liberalism; not necessarily on every bullet point but broadly speaking. The common thread among the various socialist ideologies is typically that the economy and society exist to provide for the needs of the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago*

    Marxism opposes it in theory, not practice. Soviets had nomenklatura - senior party members and officials who controlled key positions in government, industry, the military, and media. They didn't "own" factories but they controlled them.

    This place is so overwhelmingly biased that it will most likely refuse to acknowledge this and maintain their simplistic black-and-white views. Marxists simply abolished the term "aristocracy" in a formal sense while continuing such practices.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] -18 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    I don't care, get this misdirection off my feed worry about prosecuting the coconspiritors

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    Those who do not learn from history something something, nvm probably not important to anything happening today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That quote comes from a longer quote, here's most of it I think "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to hear about those who do not learn from history are doomed to hear about those who do not learn from history are doomed to hear about those who do not learn from history are doomed to hear about those who do not learn from history are doomed to hear about…"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY
    MR. EVRART IS HELPING ME FIND MY HISTORY

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    I'm willing to bet $100 that Mao would also be on that list...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    mao was never a billionaire or even rich

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Mao was a dictator, he's exactly the type of person who would be in the files.

    A billionaire is just a capitalist dictator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    the biggest hallmark of a dictatorial regime is characterized by the suffering of the country's people.

    china's literacy; education & life expectancy rates went through the roof in china.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Typical western chauvinist lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    An empty insult. There have been numerous sexual allegations against Mao in a way that don't exist for more recent Chinese Leaders. Believing Women or admitting that it may be possible at least doesn't make someone a western chauvinist. That's just chaffing at anyone who offers any criticism whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    There have been numerous sexual allegations against Mao

    Do you have a source for that? If you're right I'd like to inform myself better.

    That aside, I responded to a low effort accusation that corresponds to western chauvinism. I don't always like spending disproportionate effort responding to that kinda shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Is this how you've chosen to cope, by imagining that communists would also be pedophiles?

    Hey, Xi Jinping is still alive, how come he isn't in the files?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    by imagining that communists would also be pedophiles?

    Anyone can be a pedo.

    Hey, Xi Jinping is still alive, how come he isn’t in the files?

    I find it hard to believe that the Leader of China with access to his own intelligence agencies would be foolish enough to fall for a blackmail operation run by a guy with ties to Mossad, Trump, and the Saudi Royal family; assuming he even was a pedo. He might even be monogamous to his wife for all we know though information of his private life isn't widely available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago