Yeah, about that, people tend to have more flexible boundaries about things like that depending on their degree of familiarity. It’s not “hot guy committing a crime” it’s “date-friend surprise greeting you in the morning”. Some people are actually ok or even cherish such things. It’s a risky play, especially in USA. And Ms Billingsworth doesn’t seem particularly enamoured of it. Though she is not objecting significantly either. ?♂️
I’m too tired to look, but isn’t Asher a townie?
Townies aren’t just allowed to walk into student housing. Has nothing to do with their romantic status – it’s a security hazard for the school.
we had to sign in everyone who didn’t live in that dorm
so Zaph wouldn’t have to sign in
Asher would
thejeff
That’s clearly not policy at IU. Pretty rare in American colleges in general, as far as I can tell.
Roe
depends on the school and the type of building. in mine you had to sign in only if it was after 11 pm, in my cousins school anyone had to sign in no matter what time or who they were.
Ari
At mine there was no sign-in, but your keys would only work for your own dorm. Not to mention he’s not in a common area, he’s in her actual room, which definitely has a lock.
thejeff
The rooms certainly, it’s just the constant shock that students can get into other dorms that surprises me.
In retrospect tailgating is definitely a thing and prolly what’s happening
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Until his gramps says “Back in the Gang with you.” that is….
Dinajoyce
I thought he was a student. Wasn’t that a whole thing where Sal was like “fun fact, he goes here” and that’s why Walky wanted to go and check and see if he was a safe guy now?
When you’re on a certain relationship and trust level it’s cute.
When they keep asking who let you in, you fucked up. You are not at the relationship/trust level to do that.
Ed Callahan
I don’t think Jennifer is worried about Asher invading her personal space; she’s uncomfortable about being seen before she’s put herself together. ‘Billie, when she wasn’t hung over, was pretty vain; ‘Jennifer’ is even more so.
Christina
I can definitely see why’d you’d say Billie/Jennifer is vain, but fwiw a lot of femme folk feel this way about people seeing them before they feel put together because we’ve been conditioned to believe our natural face and state is somehow offensive to people 🙁
Oh FFS grow up. Normal people do romantic things that don’t involve asking permission every five seconds or descending into a shame spiral of “ZOMG EVERY INTERACTION IS AN ASSAULT!!!”
I don’t trust Asher either – he obviously isn’t as disconnected from his family as he pretends and while every couple has secrets I imagine ‘By the way, I helped a crazy hardware salesman kidnap you and your friends’ is gonna sorta be a deal breaker and not the sort of foundation of trust a good relationship is based on. That said I don’t think Asher has some grand scheme going here and likely legitimately loves Jennifer.
Maybe the “I also arranged the hit that put that piece of shit out of everyone’s misery” factor will help? Somehow?
I mean, it wouldn’t for me, but Jennifer/Billie’s been in some pretty toxic relationships in the past.
Also, yeah, Asher’s immersed in ugly ass shit, but that doesn’t mean that everything he does is sinister. He could well genuinely care for her.
Lion
Yeah, I’ve kinda been wondering about that too. I’m honestly not sure where Billie would ultimately fall on that, but I feel like “Get the hell away from me!” has got to be her initial reaction, at least. It’d take a level of mental gymnastics that would put her old cheerleading days to shame to rationalize how he’s still a good match for her after *that* bombshell drops.
Of course, there is another, incredibly dark possibility that just occurred to me. Billie is, as demonstrated before, pretty aware of how terrible some guys can be when it comes to relationships, and so I feel like it wouldn’t be lost on her that a guy with the connections to have someone assassinated can probably have a girlfriend that just broke up with him and may potentially expose said hit job to the authorities assassinated herself if he was feeling bitter enough about it.
Granted, I highly doubt that Asher *would* do that, and maybe Billie would give him the benefit of the doubt on that front as well, but the fact that that possibility even *exists* may be enough motivation for her to stay with him anyway out of fear for her safety, in which case…*hoo boy*.
Meagan
Yikes.
Wraithy2773
We should keep in mind that Jennifer/Billie does know that Asher’s Grandfather is Not A Nice Person, at the very least, and that Asher used to be a criminal.
…it’s possible that she knows about his involvement that night. It wouldn’t exactly surprise me to learn that she’d be okay with Blaine getting Suicide By Cop’d, given all the shit he’d done, and Asher seems the sort that could spin that into a sob story about his personal growth.
Putting the sketchy parts of his character aside, I just feel like it’s a little quick to be dropping “love”, everyone has their own emotions and such, but it just feels a little sleazy. Like they’ve been dating maybe 2 months tops and we didn’t see any of it. I have no basis for what they’re relationship is like beyond I guess they’re both hot.
King Daniel
In fairness, Dorothy also said she loved Walky in less time than that.
Andy
They’re 18 and 19. Love happens pretty fast when you don’t have the experience to separate it from infatuation.
To add to the “likely loves Jennifer” part, we should keep in mind that the last time we saw him, he seemed genuinely concerned that his relationship with Jennifer was causing a rift between her and Sal, even when she was basically cackling maniacally at the idea of Sal being jealous of them.
So I dunno, could be that he’s evil or toxic, but the other side of the relationship doesn’t seem to be too much better in that department, at least as far as appearances are concerned.
Jennifer wasn’t kidnapped that night, she had been transferred to Forrest already. She had some involvement when Blaine weaseled his way into Amber’s room, so she knew who he was but that’s the extent of it.
Honestly morning breath is the worst lol someone can look just ? in the morning, but everyone’s morning breath is nasty lol
Sirksome
Depends on Billie’s oral care routine. You think she’s the type that brushes before bed?
Agemegos
We’re a type?
anon
feels like some ppl would still get bad morning breath after brushing but it might depend , then again with billies previous (current?) drinking issues i imagine she’d be an expert on hiding stuff on her breath by now lol
zee
Brushing before bed does not help with morning breath
I tell my friends I love them. Because to me “love” means “If you died, I wouldn’t every be ok with it. I would have to change my lifestyle because of it.” Which sounds morbid but it’s a very powerful emotion.
Nah it’s always been the trope that young couples say “i love you” like a week in. Kind of a funny observation though considering how couples of younger generations are waiting longer to marry
Ruth and Jennifer broke up on Halloween and it’s now January. We don’t know how long she’s been with Asher, and they did already have history. It’s not totally out of the question.
Bourgeois/Bourgeoisie has, since the 17th century, come to mean “owning class” or just “rich people”, I think mainly because that’s how Karl Marx and some of his contemporaries used it.
thakoru
*18th Century. I always get centuries mixed up.
Mano308gts
*19th century, for that matter.
The 19th century is the 1800s, during which era Marx wrote his contributions to world history.
The 20th century is the 1900s, during which said contributions to world history spawned two of the three worst totalitarian dictatorships in known history*, albeit they shared exceedingly little with him beyond initial starting premises and naming conventions.
It’s ironic that the final of the three worst totalitarian dictatorships in known history was spawned through the intense hatred of Marx’s contributions and the desire to defeat the political movements which had grown from it.
*There’s reasonable arguments to be made that many absolutist monarchs and emperors were just as bad, and even committed atrocities on similar scales of death-counts, and it’s quite probable that Genghis Khan might have made them look like rank amateurs in that regard… But either through proximity in linear time, or through our rather bullheaded belief that we modern humans are somehow ‘better’ than our earlier predecessors, we tend to be in agreement that recent atrocities are to be viewed as worse atrocities committed centuries or even millennia prior.
King Daniel
…which three totalitarian dictatorships are you referring to?
Mano308gts
The two that share very little with Marx beyond starting premises and naming conventions should be trivial to catch; the USSR and PRC. Both of these have committed multiple genocides totalling tens of millions of people. Both of them purport(ed) to be Communist, but neither of them truly follow(ed) communism.
The last is even easier. Nazi Germany, from its inception, was centered around being anti-communist/anti-socialist. Indeed, the early Nazis cut their teeth on fighting (figuratively and literally) against the German Socialist and Communist party members.
This isn’t to exonerate anyone else, least of all America, or Britain, however the known death toll of those three is greater than any other regimes in modern times, at very least greater than any others during the 20th century.
eh, whatever
But… all three of these began in the 20th century.
thejeff
As they said: all 20th century. 2 spawned by Marx’s ideas from the 19th. The third centered around opposition to those ideas.
King Daniel
Also, while not intending to get into a whole massive debate here: I might agree that neither the USSR nor the PRC were Marxist for most of their history, but saying that they were never Communist is going full-on into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. If it shouldn’t be used to call Christians who do awful things “not real Christians”, it shouldn’t be used to call Communists who do awful things “not real Communists”.
(One side of my family comes from the former USSR—from back in the days when it wasn’t yet “the former”—so there’s also that for me personally.)
It really depends on what you mean by “communist”. Politically, both China and Russia are/were ruled by a communist party, both of which barely held any resemblance to Marx’s and Engels’ dually collaborated philosophy.
Economically, no nation in history has ever established communism, which in the works of Marx and Engels entailed that which followed the Communist Principle of Distribution: “From each according to their ability, on to each according to their need”.
In Russia’s socialist command economy, distribution unto each was still according to contribution, and soviet economic planners were quick to point out that this is exactly why they were a socialist economy and not a communist economy. Their goal was to eventually transition to a communist economy, which they said would happen when need could replace contribution in distribution. By the Soviets’ own reckoning, they never made it to being a truly communist economy, because it went through a depression right before their nation’s eventual collapse.
As for China, their government dismantled all socialist economic policies in the 1970s, although the nation as a whole is still very much ruled by a “communist” (Maoist) party.
King Daniel
Yeah, when I at least talk about communist governments, it’s safe to assume that I’m speaking of ideology, not economy. Arguing that the Soviet Union wasn’t a communist government in ideology because their economy never hit the Marxist ideal…it’s the same idea as arguing that since X Megachurch or Priesthood or Member or Organization or whatever “isn’t following the words of Jesus or doing what he would have wanted”, they aren’t True Christians™.
King Daniel
(This was meant to be a reply to The Wellerman above, sorry.)
Mano308gts
I understand your point being to avoid exonerating world-views that have committed atrocities, and I even rather agree with that viewpoint. However, I would like to make one counter-argument to you.
Ideologically communist nations (which do not and likely cannot exist in reality) are not ruled by a select leader, indeed the leader is of no importance beyond being excellent at the act of leading, and receives no greater accolades than the janitor who cleans his rooms. By contrast totalitarian dictatorships, regardless of spawning ideology, are wholly governed by a select leader, becoming from the moment of inception cults of personality centered around the charismatic strong-man. In the case of the USSR, first Lenin, then Stalin; later leaders didn’t so much rule in their own power as in the memory of these earlier ones. The same with the PRC, with Mao.
Now, for what it’s worth, since you want to make the point that words matter, the name of the People’s Republic of China doesn’t actually use either Socialist or Communist in it’s own title. Are we thus to disregard it as communist as a consequence of that? Of course not, that would be illogical. The original driving ideology of Mao was communism, and the self-claimed goal of the nation was to make the transition to a communist state. But once it became totalitarian, I would argue that only the trappings remained. Had Mao instead chosen to implement a theocratic state with himself as head (either in the role of ‘god on Earth’ or that of ‘representative of god’), then the trappings would have been different, but the total control of the government would have been the same.
Still, I think we are more in agreement than disagreement- those who are entirely pro-Communist/Socialist must contend with the fact that their ideology has spawned states capable of committing grievous atrocities. But of course, so must everyone else.
221 thoughts on “See me”
Ana Chronistic
yeah um
no
a hot guy committing a crime is still a crime
thakoru
To be fair, how many times did Billie break into Ruth’s room, again?
Decidedly Orthogonal
Yeah, about that, people tend to have more flexible boundaries about things like that depending on their degree of familiarity. It’s not “hot guy committing a crime” it’s “date-friend surprise greeting you in the morning”. Some people are actually ok or even cherish such things. It’s a risky play, especially in USA. And Ms Billingsworth doesn’t seem particularly enamoured of it. Though she is not objecting significantly either. ?♂️
Rose by Any Other Name
I’m too tired to look, but isn’t Asher a townie?
Townies aren’t just allowed to walk into student housing. Has nothing to do with their romantic status – it’s a security hazard for the school.
Thag Simmons
He’s a student
Ed Callahan
And lives in McNutt. Nut. Heh, heh.
Ana Chronistic
we had to sign in everyone who didn’t live in that dorm
so Zaph wouldn’t have to sign in
Asher would
thejeff
That’s clearly not policy at IU. Pretty rare in American colleges in general, as far as I can tell.
Roe
depends on the school and the type of building. in mine you had to sign in only if it was after 11 pm, in my cousins school anyone had to sign in no matter what time or who they were.
Ari
At mine there was no sign-in, but your keys would only work for your own dorm. Not to mention he’s not in a common area, he’s in her actual room, which definitely has a lock.
thejeff
The rooms certainly, it’s just the constant shock that students can get into other dorms that surprises me.
Ana Chronistic
In retrospect tailgating is definitely a thing and prolly what’s happening
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Until his gramps says “Back in the Gang with you.” that is….
Dinajoyce
I thought he was a student. Wasn’t that a whole thing where Sal was like “fun fact, he goes here” and that’s why Walky wanted to go and check and see if he was a safe guy now?
RassilonTDavros
Relevant Strip:
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2019/comic/book-9-comic/03-sometimes-the-sky-was-so-far-away/settled/
The Wellerman
You too tired to do some matrix style spoon bending? ??
BTW Fabulous to see you here again Rose!!! ?
Proxiehunter
When you’re on a certain relationship and trust level it’s cute.
When they keep asking who let you in, you fucked up. You are not at the relationship/trust level to do that.
Ed Callahan
I don’t think Jennifer is worried about Asher invading her personal space; she’s uncomfortable about being seen before she’s put herself together. ‘Billie, when she wasn’t hung over, was pretty vain; ‘Jennifer’ is even more so.
Christina
I can definitely see why’d you’d say Billie/Jennifer is vain, but fwiw a lot of femme folk feel this way about people seeing them before they feel put together because we’ve been conditioned to believe our natural face and state is somehow offensive to people 🙁
Megan Rivera
If we’re confident we’re “Full of ourselves”
If we’re insecure, we’re “vain”
Can’t win either way.
Paradox
Its not necessarily that they arent at that level, it seems to me that Billifer somewhat appreciates it, and is just worried about security in general
Ari
Agreed, but also Lucy letting him in would be a very different level of boundary breaking than, say, him having copied her room key
Meagan
Thank you for bringing the nuance…although does it really require much nuance to see this?
Decidedly Orthogonal
Nuance seems not to be the default state of american media, so… shrugs. Maybe, I guess?
Decidedly Orthogonal
And this grav is really adding a cringey patronizing top-spin that is **not** intended.
Reltzik
Is it a crime if Lucy let him in, though?
Agemegos
This custom in which college student have to share their bedrooms with strangers is awkward and rather shady.
Clif
You say it’s educational?
Some Guy
Oh FFS grow up. Normal people do romantic things that don’t involve asking permission every five seconds or descending into a shame spiral of “ZOMG EVERY INTERACTION IS AN ASSAULT!!!”
Sirksome
It’s a little early for “love” don’t you think? Well it’s not too early for me to say I still don’t trust Asher. That is all.
True Survivor
I don’t trust Asher either – he obviously isn’t as disconnected from his family as he pretends and while every couple has secrets I imagine ‘By the way, I helped a crazy hardware salesman kidnap you and your friends’ is gonna sorta be a deal breaker and not the sort of foundation of trust a good relationship is based on. That said I don’t think Asher has some grand scheme going here and likely legitimately loves Jennifer.
Thag Simmons
My read on Asher remains that he wants to be a good dude but isn’t very good at it
King Daniel
“Why am I so bad at being GOOD?!” ~Zuko
Wraithy2773
Maybe the “I also arranged the hit that put that piece of shit out of everyone’s misery” factor will help? Somehow?
I mean, it wouldn’t for me, but Jennifer/Billie’s been in some pretty toxic relationships in the past.
Also, yeah, Asher’s immersed in ugly ass shit, but that doesn’t mean that everything he does is sinister. He could well genuinely care for her.
Lion
Yeah, I’ve kinda been wondering about that too. I’m honestly not sure where Billie would ultimately fall on that, but I feel like “Get the hell away from me!” has got to be her initial reaction, at least. It’d take a level of mental gymnastics that would put her old cheerleading days to shame to rationalize how he’s still a good match for her after *that* bombshell drops.
Of course, there is another, incredibly dark possibility that just occurred to me. Billie is, as demonstrated before, pretty aware of how terrible some guys can be when it comes to relationships, and so I feel like it wouldn’t be lost on her that a guy with the connections to have someone assassinated can probably have a girlfriend that just broke up with him and may potentially expose said hit job to the authorities assassinated herself if he was feeling bitter enough about it.
Granted, I highly doubt that Asher *would* do that, and maybe Billie would give him the benefit of the doubt on that front as well, but the fact that that possibility even *exists* may be enough motivation for her to stay with him anyway out of fear for her safety, in which case…*hoo boy*.
Meagan
Yikes.
Wraithy2773
We should keep in mind that Jennifer/Billie does know that Asher’s Grandfather is Not A Nice Person, at the very least, and that Asher used to be a criminal.
…it’s possible that she knows about his involvement that night. It wouldn’t exactly surprise me to learn that she’d be okay with Blaine getting Suicide By Cop’d, given all the shit he’d done, and Asher seems the sort that could spin that into a sob story about his personal growth.
Not saying likely. Just a possibility.
Sirksome
Putting the sketchy parts of his character aside, I just feel like it’s a little quick to be dropping “love”, everyone has their own emotions and such, but it just feels a little sleazy. Like they’ve been dating maybe 2 months tops and we didn’t see any of it. I have no basis for what they’re relationship is like beyond I guess they’re both hot.
King Daniel
In fairness, Dorothy also said she loved Walky in less time than that.
Andy
They’re 18 and 19. Love happens pretty fast when you don’t have the experience to separate it from infatuation.
Seventh-Sandwich
To add to the “likely loves Jennifer” part, we should keep in mind that the last time we saw him, he seemed genuinely concerned that his relationship with Jennifer was causing a rift between her and Sal, even when she was basically cackling maniacally at the idea of Sal being jealous of them.
So I dunno, could be that he’s evil or toxic, but the other side of the relationship doesn’t seem to be too much better in that department, at least as far as appearances are concerned.
Edwin I Callahan
Jennifer wasn’t kidnapped that night, she had been transferred to Forrest already. She had some involvement when Blaine weaseled his way into Amber’s room, so she knew who he was but that’s the extent of it.
anon
feels like younger ppl say it faster these days, but i’m just thinking of morning breath more than any bedhead /messy clothes lol
Jeremy Betts
Honestly morning breath is the worst lol someone can look just ? in the morning, but everyone’s morning breath is nasty lol
Sirksome
Depends on Billie’s oral care routine. You think she’s the type that brushes before bed?
Agemegos
We’re a type?
anon
feels like some ppl would still get bad morning breath after brushing but it might depend , then again with billies previous (current?) drinking issues i imagine she’d be an expert on hiding stuff on her breath by now lol
zee
Brushing before bed does not help with morning breath
Nicoleandmaggie
Agreed re: morning breath.
Yotomoe
I tell my friends I love them. Because to me “love” means “If you died, I wouldn’t every be ok with it. I would have to change my lifestyle because of it.” Which sounds morbid but it’s a very powerful emotion.
Meagan
Damn that’s real
zee
Nah it’s always been the trope that young couples say “i love you” like a week in. Kind of a funny observation though considering how couples of younger generations are waiting longer to marry
Spencer
Ruth and Jennifer broke up on Halloween and it’s now January. We don’t know how long she’s been with Asher, and they did already have history. It’s not totally out of the question.
Thag Simmons
Yeah, Ruth said she loved Jennifer after a comparable amount of time, and we don’t actually know how much history Asher and Jennifer have.
The Wellerman
? Billy’s body looks so cute without her glasses!
? To bad such a repugnant bourgeois brain comes with it.
*plays “Reconstruct” by Photay on Hacked Muzak*
True Survivor
Her brain is of the 18th century French middle-class? I don’t understand.
thakoru
Bourgeois/Bourgeoisie has, since the 17th century, come to mean “owning class” or just “rich people”, I think mainly because that’s how Karl Marx and some of his contemporaries used it.
thakoru
*18th Century. I always get centuries mixed up.
Mano308gts
*19th century, for that matter.
The 19th century is the 1800s, during which era Marx wrote his contributions to world history.
The 20th century is the 1900s, during which said contributions to world history spawned two of the three worst totalitarian dictatorships in known history*, albeit they shared exceedingly little with him beyond initial starting premises and naming conventions.
It’s ironic that the final of the three worst totalitarian dictatorships in known history was spawned through the intense hatred of Marx’s contributions and the desire to defeat the political movements which had grown from it.
*There’s reasonable arguments to be made that many absolutist monarchs and emperors were just as bad, and even committed atrocities on similar scales of death-counts, and it’s quite probable that Genghis Khan might have made them look like rank amateurs in that regard… But either through proximity in linear time, or through our rather bullheaded belief that we modern humans are somehow ‘better’ than our earlier predecessors, we tend to be in agreement that recent atrocities are to be viewed as worse atrocities committed centuries or even millennia prior.
King Daniel
…which three totalitarian dictatorships are you referring to?
Mano308gts
The two that share very little with Marx beyond starting premises and naming conventions should be trivial to catch; the USSR and PRC. Both of these have committed multiple genocides totalling tens of millions of people. Both of them purport(ed) to be Communist, but neither of them truly follow(ed) communism.
The last is even easier. Nazi Germany, from its inception, was centered around being anti-communist/anti-socialist. Indeed, the early Nazis cut their teeth on fighting (figuratively and literally) against the German Socialist and Communist party members.
This isn’t to exonerate anyone else, least of all America, or Britain, however the known death toll of those three is greater than any other regimes in modern times, at very least greater than any others during the 20th century.
eh, whatever
But… all three of these began in the 20th century.
thejeff
As they said: all 20th century. 2 spawned by Marx’s ideas from the 19th. The third centered around opposition to those ideas.
King Daniel
Also, while not intending to get into a whole massive debate here: I might agree that neither the USSR nor the PRC were Marxist for most of their history, but saying that they were never Communist is going full-on into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. If it shouldn’t be used to call Christians who do awful things “not real Christians”, it shouldn’t be used to call Communists who do awful things “not real Communists”.
(One side of my family comes from the former USSR—from back in the days when it wasn’t yet “the former”—so there’s also that for me personally.)
The Wellerman
It really depends on what you mean by “communist”. Politically, both China and Russia are/were ruled by a communist party, both of which barely held any resemblance to Marx’s and Engels’ dually collaborated philosophy.
Economically, no nation in history has ever established communism, which in the works of Marx and Engels entailed that which followed the Communist Principle of Distribution: “From each according to their ability, on to each according to their need”.
In Russia’s socialist command economy, distribution unto each was still according to contribution, and soviet economic planners were quick to point out that this is exactly why they were a socialist economy and not a communist economy. Their goal was to eventually transition to a communist economy, which they said would happen when need could replace contribution in distribution. By the Soviets’ own reckoning, they never made it to being a truly communist economy, because it went through a depression right before their nation’s eventual collapse.
As for China, their government dismantled all socialist economic policies in the 1970s, although the nation as a whole is still very much ruled by a “communist” (Maoist) party.
King Daniel
Yeah, when I at least talk about communist governments, it’s safe to assume that I’m speaking of ideology, not economy. Arguing that the Soviet Union wasn’t a communist government in ideology because their economy never hit the Marxist ideal…it’s the same idea as arguing that since X Megachurch or Priesthood or Member or Organization or whatever “isn’t following the words of Jesus or doing what he would have wanted”, they aren’t True Christians™.
King Daniel
(This was meant to be a reply to The Wellerman above, sorry.)
Mano308gts
I understand your point being to avoid exonerating world-views that have committed atrocities, and I even rather agree with that viewpoint. However, I would like to make one counter-argument to you.
Ideologically communist nations (which do not and likely cannot exist in reality) are not ruled by a select leader, indeed the leader is of no importance beyond being excellent at the act of leading, and receives no greater accolades than the janitor who cleans his rooms. By contrast totalitarian dictatorships, regardless of spawning ideology, are wholly governed by a select leader, becoming from the moment of inception cults of personality centered around the charismatic strong-man. In the case of the USSR, first Lenin, then Stalin; later leaders didn’t so much rule in their own power as in the memory of these earlier ones. The same with the PRC, with Mao.
Now, for what it’s worth, since you want to make the point that words matter, the name of the People’s Republic of China doesn’t actually use either Socialist or Communist in it’s own title. Are we thus to disregard it as communist as a consequence of that? Of course not, that would be illogical. The original driving ideology of Mao was communism, and the self-claimed goal of the nation was to make the transition to a communist state. But once it became totalitarian, I would argue that only the trappings remained. Had Mao instead chosen to implement a theocratic state with himself as head (either in the role of ‘god on Earth’ or that of ‘representative of god’), then the trappings would have been different, but the total control of the government would have been the same.
Still, I think we are more in agreement than disagreement- those who are entirely pro-Communist/Socialist must contend with the fact that their ideology has spawned states capable of committing grievous atrocities. But of course, so must everyone else.
The Wellerman
Would you argue the same would apply to anarchocommunists?
Vukodlak
Oh yeah she’s dating this @@@hole
Doctor_Who
It’s okay, this is an adult comic. You can say that word.
She’s dating this piehole.
True Survivor
MMM… pie. My favorite is pumpkin pie but I also love apple.
Clif
Both of which are objectively inferior to pecan.