No, Cuba is a dictatorship because after the guy in the green killed the guy on the throne, he just tool his place on the throne instead of holding free and fair elections.
You should read up on Cuban Democracy. Not only is Cuba now more democratic than under Batista, a fascist slaver US puppet, Cuba is more democratic than countries like the United States.
Those claiming Cuba does not have "free and fair elections," without fail, are those who oppose their system of Socialism and wish for the US to recolonize Cuba.
You really need to do more research. In Cuba, candidates are nominated by the people. The Party plays no role on this process. The actual elections are done with those that have been nominated, logically people will not change their mind. The United States hasn't had a third party Candidate win the presidency either, that's a silly sticking point for you.
With Raul Castro’s announcement that he will not accept nomination to the presidency in 2018, we can expect the spotlight to be shone on the Cuba elections as never before.
I think it's amazing when US people try to claim that other countries they know jackshit about are undemocratic, while having a Dr. Seuss-ass electoral system with legalized bribing that exclusively elects ghouls everyone despises.
They wish to see Cuba recolonized, so they dismiss any claims that would get in the way of their moral standing in maintaining that stance. Ie, recolonization is better than living in a system where Castro (who isn't president anymore, though I doubt they know that) eats babies or some nonsense.
Because of this, they pile a large amount of lies on top of Castro (who again, isn't president anymore) and demand the Cuban people be "freed" from themselves, ripe for the US to swoop back in and recolonize. If the Communists aren't evil, then they can't justify wanting to recolonize Cuba anymore morally.
I’ve become very skeptical of the concept of “brainwashing.” Over the past few months this skepticism has boiled over into open and explicit disagreement with even well-meaning pushers within the Marxist-Leninist corner.
It’s cool how you make broad assumptions about an entire nation of people while criticizing them for doing the exact same. Lol
It’s not unreasonable to want to see Cubans thrive under a socialist government led by the people while simultaneously criticizing Castro for being an oppressive dictator.
I am speaking of the subconscious roots of this. I think most people would generally say they want the Cuban people to succeed. However, the underlying base for how information about Cuba, and Castro in particular as a special "demon," is interpreted is guided by bias. The essay I linked makes a great case for such a process explaining why people believe what they believe even in the face of proof to the contrary, provided by myself and other pro-Cuban commenters.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
I didn’t intend to demonize him. He’s just not the man of the people that a small socialist nation needed to prosper. Castro wasn’t always authoritarian. I think he may have been kept in check by Che’s idealism, had he not died.
Can you explain any of this, though? Why do you say he was a dictator? Why do you say he wasn't a "man of the people," what could he have done to better help his people prosper? Che and Fidel got along quite well, the anticommunist "left" mostly uses the fact that Che died early to support the idea that the Cuban Revolution was "betrayed," it's a convenient rhetorical technique that allows you to claim Leftist aesthetics while agreeing entirely with the US State Department, who wishes to recolonize Cuba.
Absolutely. Fidel was more pragmatic compared to Che. My point was that I believe Che’s idealism could have had a positive effect on Fidel’s career had he survived.
Why do you say he was a dictator?
In 1959, Castro promised free and fair elections the following year. He was the longest-serving non-royal head of state in two centuries with a 50 year reign, and never held an election.
There’s no need for name calling. I could just be misinformed, and this could be your chance to change that. I’d appreciate a reply without the condescension.
Everything I’ve read has been to the contrary. Do you have a source on Fidel’s elections? Surely Cuba or its allies must have written at least one article on their free and fair elections in the past fifty years.
I'm sick and tired of westerners barging in and confidently making claims about subjects they know nothing about: If you don't know anything about Cuban elections, you shouldn't be proudly making ignorant assertions.
What exactly have you read that "has been to the contrary"?
God, you western chauvinists are incapable of not operating in bad faith. You barge in here making bullshit claims about things you know nothing about with absolutely no sources of your own, then demand people who know better educate you.
I’m not demanding education. I’m asking you to substantiate your point.
If you are incapable of doing so, then your point is simply considered a rumor. Aggressive and condescending language may convince the uneducated, but you’ve successfully proven nothing.
Dumbfuck, YOU were the one who made the unsubstantiated claim. But of course, you're to much of an arrogant white supremacist to think that YOU should have to do what you demand of others.
I also KNOW you've seen the links Cowbee has provided, so at this point you're literally just throwing a tantrum and trying to waste time in pure bad faith.
Also fucking wild that you call other people uneducated when you've already admitted you know nothing about the topic.
I can be an educated person who has limited knowledge about a specific topic. Your comments keep teetering on the line between bad faith and abject stupidity.
Reply if you have a credible source. Your word has proven to be worthless.
You can spare me the lecture on how these are all western propaganda and get to the part where you provide any proof that Fidel Castro held elections. I don’t care if it’s Cuban, Venezuelan, Russian, whoever. If they held elections, there must have at least been one article in fifty years.
Checked your first source and it literally doesn't say anywhere that Castro didn't have elections. So Further proof that you're acting in pure bad faith and just posting random links to try and waste my time.
Edit: Checked another, also doesn't contain your claim, you lying shitstain.
Lol, so you admit you're deliberately spamming links regardless of whether they support your claim just so you can waste my time by saying "Oh but you didn't read all of them". And now you're throwing a tantrum that I didn't rise too it.
Fucker, you didn't even read your own sources, don't go telling other people to read more.
They cite his claim that he’ll hold elections in 18 months, but there’s no mention of an election, and he remained in power for 5 decades. What is so hard to comprehend?
How about you find one source stating there were elections, rather than asking for proof of non-existence. It’s like arguing with a Christian over here.
There were elections in many areas, of course, and you conveniently leave out the Bay of Pigs. Ultimately, the measure of democracy in a country is the extent to which the people are satisfied by how much their input is taken into account. The Cuban People supported Fidel, which is why he remained.
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
I’m fully aware that Fidel died in 2016, and his brother Raul was elected into power in 2013.
None of that changes the fact that Fidel promised free and fair elections then proceeded to remain in power, without holding elections, for five decades.
Fuck off, I know you're not being genuine, and you know you're not being genuine. I don't care to convince you because you already know you're wrong, and I know that because I saw Cowbee tried engaging in good faith with you and you ignored him.
Oh please, tell me about all you education and sources that you got your information from. Oh wait, you fucking can't, because you know fucking nothing about Cuba and you get all your information from the ambient red scare propaganda you're marinated in.
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
I'm flabbergasted that the official website of a political entity is being touted as evidence that the political entity isn't perceived correctly.
Forget about Cuba, or politics, or class, everything. This is not how you find the truth. What's the thing I'm not thinking of that's throwing things off balance? Why would someone link to North Korea's official website to argue that North Korea is not so bad? What's the use and whose it for?
And this is why I think Cowbee is wasting his time trying to engage in good faith with shitlibs; you'll always just worm your way out and find some excuse, because you're not actually engaging in good faith, you've already decided what you believe, and because you're supremely arrogant westerners, nothing will ever be as good as your gut feeling for you.
To be clear, I have no illusions about mhague changing their mind, I engage for others who see the clear bad faith and contradictory logic to maybe have their minds changed.
Gotta say I really appreciate that you do this. I try to varying degrees when I have the time since like you said it’s usually so lurkers can have their minds changed but it can be time consuming.
It’s really nice when others are jumping in to help and I see you posting great takes a ton.
Thanks! It's more of an evolution of myself over time, back in my Reddit days years ago I used to be such a debatebro. Now I try to be more chill and focus on education and unity, though when the obviously bad-faith users swarm in I try to call them out on that moreso than trying to focus on education. Sometimes I get great questions that help me reconsider things, sometimes people thank me over DMs or in comments, and either way it's a great feeling.
Never really looked too deep on Cuba beyond what is obviously forced into my face by American education/media/"news" etc...
So interesting to see a dissenting opinion, I support socialism/communism tho I wish there were better examples of communism working to point to, as if the west didn't actively work against it all the time lol.
But it is fair to say I think that it is a bit concerning how often it has devolved into essentially dictatorships of one kind or another, but basically since Reagan it's not like we've actually had a honest legislature/election process.
As for democracy in Socialist countries, it's a lot higher than you'd think, even if there's work to be done. They aren't dictatorships and generally never have been, they are usually accused as such for restricting freedom of Capitalists and fascists. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds if you want a critical look at the Soviet Union, or Soviet Democracy if you want to learn more about the democratic process. Most Socialist countries follow similar structures.
We’ve never really had an “honest” election process. The US has never been a democracy, because it was born of bourgeois revolution[1], and its laws & institutions were crafted by and for the bourgeoisie. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote.
What in the World: A new report finds that an elite few dominate US policy, the human error behind South Korea's ferry tragedy, and Algeria's uneasy status quo election.
Haha I know, but like to pretend. I literally made the same point to my wife after reading like 10 pages of the Soviet Democracy book I was linked earlier.
We did eventually move further toward more democracy and socialist practices up until the red scare imo, but the foundations were definitely not as rosy as they paint it to be and many people lost their lives to push for progress.
All I ask for is the truth. That's why I'm called tankie, liberal, Nazi, commie, Trumper, imperialist, hippie. I get bent out of shape when people sling lies and it causes me to become whatever boogeyman they're turning around in their head.
Did you comb my posts to figure out I'm a liberal? I'm pro India, pro USA, pro China, pro Russia, (making it simple so you can digest it) so it's weird you got liberal.
The only sources I trust: Prager U and the US State Department. And maybe some thinktank funded by the Koch brothers called something like Institute for International Freedom and Democratic Policy
You’re trading one form of corruption for another. Once Castro was given enough time in power, he proved to be no better than Batista. In 1959, he falsely promised free and fair elections in 18 months, and then ruled for five decades.
I think Che’s idealism may have been better suited for the role, but that wasn’t the plan. With Cuba’s small scale and valuable exports, they should be able to successfully run a socialist or communist nation without intervention.
I'm not sure you understand that the "political dissidents" you are defending were right-wing death squads, fascists, and slavers. Of course they opposed their slaves and workers rising above them.
First off, drop the homophobia. It is entirely unsurprising that anti-communists inevitably resort to ableism, honophobia, transphobia, or misogyny to attack those supporting Socialism, but it's truly horrible behavior. Claiming I am being "bad-faith" when you resort to homophobic attacks is ironic.
Castro was elected, and did not have absolute power. The people he oppressed were the Slavers, Fascists, and Capitalists that worked with the United States to colonize and enslave the people of Cuba. Castro is labeled a dictator for taking away the freedom to enslave, the freedom to colonize, from the United States and their allies in Cuba.
I defend victims of Imperialism punished for overthrowing their colonizers and creating a more progressive and democratic system. You didn't even walk back your homophobia, and I didn't even attack you once. The fact that you couldn't offer any proof or counter to my sources further cements your lack of interest in the common good of the Cuban people, rather, it seems you wish to recolonize them.
"Sucking dick" as an insult is homophobic because the root is in shame. Shame, because sexual favors are seen as "subservient," which also has roots in misogyny. Given that I display my pronouns as he/they, it's pretty clearly directed in a manner that tried to depict me in a "shameful" position giving sexual favors to men.
Given that I am also pansexual, this is worse, though they had no way to know.
Tangentially, "kissing ass" has similar roots. Further still, even after having it pointed out, they defended their actions. Certainly not actions I would want a moderator of queer communities to have.
I understand how it could be insulting as a command. “Go suck a dick” implies that it’s an undesirable activity to be used as punishment.
I don’t understand the homophobia in using sucking dick like kissing ass, swinging from their nuts, or cucking. They are interchangeable in both context and sexuality.
Again, the root is that performing sexual favors for someone you are supporting or defending is in shame. The source of this shame, is that society sees such an action in a negative light. If you say someone supporting someone is sucking them off, it implies that they are taking a shameful action that if discovered they would be embarrassed.
It weaponizes society's homophobia to silence others. On top of being rude, it's based in misogyny and homophobia.
It wouldn't be homophobic to claim you were kissing a woman's ass. It would still be rooted in sexual shame, which has misognyistic roots. I told you quite plainly that I openly display my pronouns and am a pansexual man, saying I am sucking someone's dick is homophobic in this case.
So the only way to use a sexually charged analogy for sidling without being homophobic is to ensure the sexual act differed from the subject’s sexual preference if they’re homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual, but aligned with their sexual preference if they’re heterosexual?
Also, I thought pronouns only assisted in determining gender. How could I know your sexual preference simply by knowing your gender?
I’m pretty sure you’re asking for more awareness and consideration than most people are willing to provide.
That gets rid of the bulk of the homophobia, technically, but the basis is typically rooted in misogyny regardless and using sexually charged analogies as sources of shame in general should be avoided. I'm not asking for awareness, I'm asking that insults be purely related to the topic at hand and not based on immutable characteristics. Notice how I brushed aside accusations of being a "tankie?" Such an insult is silly, but doesn't assert sexual shame.
It's a very common insult, so it's difficult to address directly. When analyzing an insult, you have to analyze why it's insulting. Why is it that sexual acts based on service specifically are common? Because the service aspect is primary. They specifically didn't say I was "railing Castro" or anything, such an accusation implies dominance and manliness, in a way, while being submissive is shameful. It brings to mind the historical treatment of women as subservient to men, and the historical classification of homosexual men as "feminized."
Consider it this way: why would someone not want to be accused of sucking someone off, vs being accused of being a loyal dog? Where is the distinction? The latter focuses on dehumanization, the former focuses on sexual hierarchy, misogyny, and homophobia.
Submission is indeed the point of the insult. When going into a conversation with the intent to insult based on subservience, the manner you present it determines the source of the insult facor. The message "you are submissive" isn't insulting by itself, so the necessity is to twist it in a manner that hurts. Sexuality is, in its modern form, pretty impossible to detangle from notions of shame brought out by homophobia and patriarchy, hence why I am against it wholecloth.
That’s fair. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective in good faith. I’ll keep this in mind when referencing submission from now on.
What are you talking about? I am completely sincere. Read the whole thread. I didn’t understand Cowbee’s perspective, and challenged it. It took a while, but I now understand the position. I’m going to make a conscious effort to remove sexuality from my submissive analogies based on Cowbee’s insight. Don’t minimize that. This is how people learn.
I picked up on your intentions, believe me, but the origins for why it is insulting is rooted in shame, misogyny, and homophobia. To copy my comment:
"Sucking dick" as an insult is homophobic because the root is in shame. Shame, because sexual favors are seen as "subservient," which also has roots in misogyny. Given that I display my pronouns as he/they, it's pretty clearly directed in a manner that tried to depict me in a "shameful" position giving sexual favors to men.
Given that I am also pansexual, this is worse, though they had no way to know.
Tangentially, "kissing ass" has similar roots. Further still, even after having it pointed out, they defended their actions. Certainly not actions I would want a moderator of queer communities to have.
Of course it is, now Cuba is more progressive for queer people than the vast majority of the world, including the US. I never once said Castro was a saint free of any sin.
I have a positive view of Cuba and Castro, and believe them to be working towards immense progress. I additionally believe that they are unduely attacked, overly so, because of being Socialists and the US' interest in recolonizing them.
Your accusation was that it was authouritarian to jail fascists, slavers, and the right-wing American Death Squads, to which I can only think is a defense of letting them run free and murder everyone.
I see that now, but it was admittedly tough to grasp at first. Cowbee was able to clarify for me in another thread on this post. It may be helpful for others.
"Sucking dick" as an insult is homophobic because the root is in shame. Shame, because sexual favors are seen as "subservient," which also has roots in misogyny. Given that I display my pronouns as he/they, it's pretty clearly directed in a manner that tried to depict me in a "shameful" position giving sexual favors to men.
Given that I am also pansexual, this is worse, though they had no way to know.
Tangentially, "kissing ass" has similar roots. Further still, even after having it pointed out, they defended their actions. Certainly not actions I would want a moderator of queer communities to have.
I cannot but defend the authoritarian, nay, the stalinistprohibition on using handcuffs in prisons. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing prisoners get what they deserve, to know that they are forced to do what they want to, to know that they have to work if they feel like it.
You don't know enough about the government of Cuba to not like it, as proven by the fact that you think Batista was no worse than Castro. You're just a brainwashed western fascist who thinks their ignorance is equal to actual knowledge.
It’s fun watching this person berate you for being homophobic over an analogy while wholeheartedly supporting a dictator who persecuted, imprisoned, and forced conversion on homosexuals.
What are you talking about? The point of comparing Fidel’s actions and the commenter’s analogy was to illustrate the severity of Castro’s actions by comparison, not minimize the offensive analogy. They’re also aggressively berating the other person, unlike your genuine attempt at connection in the other thread.
Your comment feels like bad faith. If you’re genuinely stating that my comment implies that homophobic analogies are justified by Castro’s atrocities, I’ll delete it. I have no interest in offending an entire group of people.
The user you are replying to has only had issue with Castro "jailing political dissidents," who were supporters of the fascist (and homophobic) slaver Batista regime. When this was pointed out, they never spoke out against it.
I assert that the Communists taking power was good for the people of Cuba, and that those like Castro are demonized because they liberated Cuba from colonizers, slavers, and fascists. Castro, however, was not a saint free from sin, merely a far better person than Batista with the Cuban people at heart.
I of course detest homophobia, and don't erase that. However, it remains important to recognize that homosexuality was illegal in Batista's reign, and that the system Castro helped build was the one that ultimately passed the current Family Code that is among the best for the LGBT community on the planet.
We can agree to disagree on Castro. I’m more concerned with unintentionally offending people’s sexuality. Do you think it reads more as minimization of the offensiveness of the analogy, or illustrating the severity of Fidel’s actions by comparison? Honest answer please.
Given that you already know that I'm pansexual and presumably know that the hill the user you replied to has chosen to die on the hill of defending Batista and the fascists jailed by Castro, one has to see that you calling me hypocritical for calling them out on their use of homophobic insults without them bring up anything about Castro with respect to homosexuality is a minimization of their homophobia.
In this case, again, it was thanks to the democratic institutions put in place by the Communists that even allowed homosexuality to be legalized, rather than continuing to be enslaved and colonized.
I wasn’t being critical of you. I legitimately appreciated our conversation. BrainInaBox is the user that’s being insultingly critical of others without a clear explanation of how it’s offensive. If they handled it the way that you did, I wouldn’t have made the snarky comment.
Again, not to me. My comment was regarding BrainInaBox’s treatment of another user. Had they not repeatedly and angrily vilified the other user, maybe their point would’ve been heard.
You should teach them diplomacy and respect if you really want to support the message. They didn’t want to hear it from me.
Which is exactly why I asked your opinion five comments ago. Lol
All I’m saying is you’ve got a person saying “what you said is homophobic and you’re a fucking idiot bigot if you don’t listen” in the same breath as “Fedel held votes but I don’t have proof and anything you say is stupid imperialist propaganda,” while fully aware of how Castro treated homosexuals, isn’t really the most compelling stance and may be deserving of the same condescension they’re dishing out.
Again, I wasn’t defending the victim, I was criticizing the attacker. When presented with one person unintentionally offending someone, and another repeatedly verbally attacking them in retaliation, one must choose which evil to criticize.
If the person committing the repeated verbal attacks were the homophobe, then they’d be the one I’d criticize first. A strong moral compass and delusions of superiority are in no way justification for verbal attacks.
In my opinion, attacking someone for getting upset at homopbobia and defense of fascism serves to minimize the damage. This is why "tone policing" doesn't work too well, BrainInABox is justified in attacking homophobia and running interference for fascists and slavers.
Agree to disagree. There’s nothing compelling about condescension, belittlement, and name calling, and it’s frankly discrediting to any message it’s attached.
Your key issue was that Castro "jailed political dissidents." The political dissidents jailed by Castro were supporters of the Batista Regime, who were slavers, fascists, and colinizers working with the United States. The "authoritarian action" you are criticizing was jailing fascists and slavers, this is definitionally implying that you support Castro letting slavers and fascists run free, ergo defending fascism.
This is entirely false. Life expectancies rose dramatically, slavery was abolished, literacy rates rose dramatically, and the economy was democratized under Castro. To claim Castro is "no better than" the US backed fascist slaver is incredibly out of touch with reality.
Further, global trade is a necessity. No country in the Global North runs on its own, rather, they function based on Imperialism and plunder the Global South. If, say, France were to be cut off from the countries it plunders, it would collapse. The resiliance of the Socialist system therefore has proven itself.
You should read up on Cuban Democracy. Not only is Cuba now more democratic than under Batista, a fascist slaver US puppet, Cuba is more democratic than countries like the United States.
Yes they are, even wiki would show you there's 28 unaffiliated members in Nation Assembly, and also you may read about how it look here - Cuba is way more democratic than literally every capitalist country.
With Raul Castro’s announcement that he will not accept nomination to the presidency in 2018, we can expect the spotlight to be shone on the Cuba elections as never before.
I visited Cuba some months ago. Amazing what they can and have done better than supposedly "first world" countries like the US in terms of healthcare, houselessness, etc. Of course they also have many issues but almost all of them can be traced to the blockade.
The blockade is utterly indefensible. A crime against humanity.
Is there any way to (legally) circumvent the blockade? I know they don't have access to steam so it's not like people can buy Cuban games like they can buy Russian games, but is there any other way (short of going there on vacation)?
That idiot literally thinks Castro is still alive and that Cuba has a "throne", don't act like westerners have any idea about the specifics of Cuban elections law when they're giving their ignorant opinions of it.
Right? It's easy to bloviate about "free, ~~democratic~~ fair elections" when you're the world's superpower. When you live NEXT to the world's superpower, there's no such thing.
Fantastically well said. Cuba's a very democratic country, moreso than the US, so when people accuse it of not being so that can only mean they wish to remove the safeguards preventing US recolonization.
What has been effective is the strategy of "make life as hard as possible on Cubans so most Americans will look at Cuba and think communism doesn't work."
Yep, and people think it's silly that North Koreans hate the US that starved them through sanctions, committed genocide, and dropped more tons of bombs on it than the entire Pacific Front.
It was effective in Syria last month, after a decade (really several decades) of effort and hundreds of billions of dollars. All you gotta do is infinitely fund and arm ~~terrorists~~ “moderate rebels” and Bob’s your uncle.
No candidate for the Cuban national assembly has ever lost an election though?
Cuba selects a candidate for each seat, and voters can either approve or disapprove them (requiring a new candidate to be chosen). But this has never happened in Cuban history.
Because free and fair elections are determined internally as they always have?
Correct, which is why westerners should shut the fuck up and stop giving their uneducated opinions about whether other countries elections are "free and fair" (ie. Result in the outcome America wants.)
WoodScientist
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •like this
Skua likes this.
BrainInABox
in reply to WoodScientist • • •like this
TVA likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to WoodScientist • • •You should read up on Cuban Democracy. Not only is Cuba now more democratic than under Batista, a fascist slaver US puppet, Cuba is more democratic than countries like the United States.
Those claiming Cuba does not have "free and fair elections," without fail, are those who oppose their system of Socialism and wish for the US to recolonize Cuba.
How do elections work in Cuba?
en.granma.culike this
TVA likes this.
WoodScientist
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •You're insane.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electi…
The Communist party, the only party, nominates all candidates to the assembly. No candidate has ever lost election.
Cuba plays pretend democracy.
political elections for public offices in Cuba
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to WoodScientist • • •Watch the ableism with the claims of "insanity."
You really need to do more research. In Cuba, candidates are nominated by the people. The Party plays no role on this process. The actual elections are done with those that have been nominated, logically people will not change their mind. The United States hasn't had a third party Candidate win the presidency either, that's a silly sticking point for you.
How does democracy in Cuba work?
cuba-solidarity.org.uklike this
TVA likes this.
ShinkanTrain
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •like this
TVA likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •They wish to see Cuba recolonized, so they dismiss any claims that would get in the way of their moral standing in maintaining that stance. Ie, recolonization is better than living in a system where Castro (who isn't president anymore, though I doubt they know that) eats babies or some nonsense.
Because of this, they pile a large amount of lies on top of Castro (who again, isn't president anymore) and demand the Cuban people be "freed" from themselves, ripe for the US to swoop back in and recolonize. If the Communists aren't evil, then they can't justify wanting to recolonize Cuba anymore morally.
I recommend always Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."
Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing”
redsails.orgdisguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •It’s cool how you make broad assumptions about an entire nation of people while criticizing them for doing the exact same. Lol
It’s not unreasonable to want to see Cubans thrive under a socialist government led by the people while simultaneously criticizing Castro for being an oppressive dictator.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •I am speaking of the subconscious roots of this. I think most people would generally say they want the Cuban people to succeed. However, the underlying base for how information about Cuba, and Castro in particular as a special "demon," is interpreted is guided by bias. The essay I linked makes a great case for such a process explaining why people believe what they believe even in the face of proof to the contrary, provided by myself and other pro-Cuban commenters.
It's absolutely worth hearing
- YouTube
www.youtube.comlike this
Dessalines likes this.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Absolutely. Fidel was more pragmatic compared to Che. My point was that I believe Che’s idealism could have had a positive effect on Fidel’s career had he survived.
In 1959, Castro promised free and fair elections the following year. He was the longest-serving non-royal head of state in two centuries with a 50 year reign, and never held an election.
That’s a dictator.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •There’s no need for name calling. I could just be misinformed, and this could be your chance to change that. I’d appreciate a reply without the condescension.
Everything I’ve read has been to the contrary. Do you have a source on Fidel’s elections? Surely Cuba or its allies must have written at least one article on their free and fair elections in the past fifty years.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •I'm sick and tired of westerners barging in and confidently making claims about subjects they know nothing about: If you don't know anything about Cuban elections, you shouldn't be proudly making ignorant assertions.
What exactly have you read that "has been to the contrary"?
disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •I’m not demanding education. I’m asking you to substantiate your point.
If you are incapable of doing so, then your point is simply considered a rumor. Aggressive and condescending language may convince the uneducated, but you’ve successfully proven nothing.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Dumbfuck, YOU were the one who made the unsubstantiated claim. But of course, you're to much of an arrogant white supremacist to think that YOU should have to do what you demand of others.
I also KNOW you've seen the links Cowbee has provided, so at this point you're literally just throwing a tantrum and trying to waste time in pure bad faith.
Also fucking wild that you call other people uneducated when you've already admitted you know nothing about the topic.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •I can be an educated person who has limited knowledge about a specific topic. Your comments keep teetering on the line between bad faith and abject stupidity.
Reply if you have a credible source. Your word has proven to be worthless.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •How about you present your credible souse first, you arrogant fuck. You were the one who made the unsourced claim after all.
Oh, my word has Proven to be worthless has it? PROVEN. Well let's see your proof you smug little shitheal.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-am…
amnesty.org/en/latest/news/201…
hrw.org/news/2016/11/26/cuba-f…
pbs.org/newshour/world/day-fid…
latinoamerica21.com/en/cuba-70…
You can spare me the lecture on how these are all western propaganda and get to the part where you provide any proof that Fidel Castro held elections. I don’t care if it’s Cuban, Venezuelan, Russian, whoever. If they held elections, there must have at least been one article in fifty years.
Cuba: 70 years without democracy - Latinoamérica 21
Leandro Querido (Latinoamerica21)BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Checked your first source and it literally doesn't say anywhere that Castro didn't have elections. So Further proof that you're acting in pure bad faith and just posting random links to try and waste my time.
Edit: Checked another, also doesn't contain your claim, you lying shitstain.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •So you watched a video and made assumptions about all of the remaining articles?
It’s no wonder you have such a skewed and ignorant opinion and handle cognitive dissonance with aggressive outbursts.
You need to read more.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Lol, so you admit you're deliberately spamming links regardless of whether they support your claim just so you can waste my time by saying "Oh but you didn't read all of them". And now you're throwing a tantrum that I didn't rise too it.
Fucker, you didn't even read your own sources, don't go telling other people to read more.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •They cite his claim that he’ll hold elections in 18 months, but there’s no mention of an election, and he remained in power for 5 decades. What is so hard to comprehend?
How about you find one source stating there were elections, rather than asking for proof of non-existence. It’s like arguing with a Christian over here.
Shardikprime
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •MarxMadness
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Why don't you hold yourself to this standard?
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •I’m fully aware that Fidel died in 2016, and his brother Raul was elected into power in 2013.
None of that changes the fact that Fidel promised free and fair elections then proceeded to remain in power, without holding elections, for five decades.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Lol, demonstrating your own proud ignorance. Raul is also dead, dumbfuck
So you've graduated from making bullshit claims that you have no basis for to outright lying and making claims you know are false.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •So Raul wasn’t elected in 2013 because he’s dead now? Ridiculous. Do you have a source to substantiate Fidel’s elections?
Your childish outrage proves nothing. Find a credible source or accept that you’re repeating hearsay.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •As ever, western fascists like you have to resort to pretending to be illiterate.
Funny how you believe you don't need sources or to actually know anything, but everyone else does. Arrogant fuck that you are.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •I want a credible source because I don’t trust the words from some internet stranger.
Maybe if you followed the same educated approach to information you’d have a different opinion of Castro too. Lol
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Fuck off, I know you're not being genuine, and you know you're not being genuine. I don't care to convince you because you already know you're wrong, and I know that because I saw Cowbee tried engaging in good faith with you and you ignored him.
Oh please, tell me about all you education and sources that you got your information from. Oh wait, you fucking can't, because you know fucking nothing about Cuba and you get all your information from the ambient red scare propaganda you're marinated in.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Pulptastic
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •100_kg_90_de_belin
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •mhague
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I'm flabbergasted that the official website of a political entity is being touted as evidence that the political entity isn't perceived correctly.
Forget about Cuba, or politics, or class, everything. This is not how you find the truth. What's the thing I'm not thinking of that's throwing things off balance? Why would someone link to North Korea's official website to argue that North Korea is not so bad? What's the use and whose it for?
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
BrainInABox
in reply to mhague • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BrainInABox • • •TrippyFocus
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Gotta say I really appreciate that you do this. I try to varying degrees when I have the time since like you said it’s usually so lurkers can have their minds changed but it can be time consuming.
It’s really nice when others are jumping in to help and I see you posting great takes a ton.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to TrippyFocus • • •Thanks! It's more of an evolution of myself over time, back in my Reddit days years ago I used to be such a debatebro. Now I try to be more chill and focus on education and unity, though when the obviously bad-faith users swarm in I try to call them out on that moreso than trying to focus on education. Sometimes I get great questions that help me reconsider things, sometimes people thank me over DMs or in comments, and either way it's a great feeling.
Thanks for the support!
Jakeroxs
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Hi I'm a lurker and I appreciated the responses.
Never really looked too deep on Cuba beyond what is obviously forced into my face by American education/media/"news" etc...
So interesting to see a dissenting opinion, I support socialism/communism tho I wish there were better examples of communism working to point to, as if the west didn't actively work against it all the time lol.
But it is fair to say I think that it is a bit concerning how often it has devolved into essentially dictatorships of one kind or another, but basically since Reagan it's not like we've actually had a honest legislature/election process.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Jakeroxs • • •Appreciate the kind words!
As for democracy in Socialist countries, it's a lot higher than you'd think, even if there's work to be done. They aren't dictatorships and generally never have been, they are usually accused as such for restricting freedom of Capitalists and fascists. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds if you want a critical look at the Soviet Union, or Soviet Democracy if you want to learn more about the democratic process. Most Socialist countries follow similar structures.
Blackshirts and Reds — Comrades Library
comlib.encryptionin.spaceJakeroxs
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Jakeroxs • • •davel
in reply to Jakeroxs • • •We’ve never really had an “honest” election process. The US has never been a democracy, because it was born of bourgeois revolution[1], and its laws & institutions were crafted by and for the bourgeoisie. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote.
[Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
What in the world? (BBC News)Jakeroxs
in reply to davel • • •Haha I know, but like to pretend. I literally made the same point to my wife after reading like 10 pages of the Soviet Democracy book I was linked earlier.
We did eventually move further toward more democracy and socialist practices up until the red scare imo, but the foundations were definitely not as rosy as they paint it to be and many people lost their lives to push for progress.
mhague
in reply to BrainInABox • • •All I ask for is the truth. That's why I'm called tankie, liberal, Nazi, commie, Trumper, imperialist, hippie. I get bent out of shape when people sling lies and it causes me to become whatever boogeyman they're turning around in their head.
Did you comb my posts to figure out I'm a liberal? I'm pro India, pro USA, pro China, pro Russia, (making it simple so you can digest it) so it's weird you got liberal.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to mhague • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
ShinkanTrain
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
ryannathans
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •reallykindasorta
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
ocean
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ocean • • •StalinIsMaiWaifu
in reply to ocean • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •You’re trading one form of corruption for another. Once Castro was given enough time in power, he proved to be no better than Batista. In 1959, he falsely promised free and fair elections in 18 months, and then ruled for five decades.
I think Che’s idealism may have been better suited for the role, but that wasn’t the plan. With Cuba’s small scale and valuable exports, they should be able to successfully run a socialist or communist nation without intervention.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •You're a fucking moron or a white supremacist if you think Castro was not better than Batista.
like this
TVA likes this.
Acemod
in reply to BrainInABox • • •And you are as well; thinking that Castro wasn't a dictator who jailed political dissidents and rivals ala Soviet style.
Don't be as dumb as a tankie.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Acemod • • •like this
TVA likes this.
Acemod
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •So the fact that he did it during his entire regime isn't an issue?
Buds, that isn't the argument you think it is.
Don't be a dumb tankie.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Acemod • • •like this
TVA likes this.
Acemod
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Oh you mean like Castro had as well?
Like every other dictator.
What is it with internet communists sucking authoritarian cock?
I'm not sure you are in good faith here.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Acemod • • •First off, drop the homophobia. It is entirely unsurprising that anti-communists inevitably resort to ableism, honophobia, transphobia, or misogyny to attack those supporting Socialism, but it's truly horrible behavior. Claiming I am being "bad-faith" when you resort to homophobic attacks is ironic.
Castro was elected, and did not have absolute power. The people he oppressed were the Slavers, Fascists, and Capitalists that worked with the United States to colonize and enslave the people of Cuba. Castro is labeled a dictator for taking away the freedom to enslave, the freedom to colonize, from the United States and their allies in Cuba.
like this
TVA and Dessalines like this.
Acemod
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Acemod • • •I defend victims of Imperialism punished for overthrowing their colonizers and creating a more progressive and democratic system. You didn't even walk back your homophobia, and I didn't even attack you once. The fact that you couldn't offer any proof or counter to my sources further cements your lack of interest in the common good of the Cuban people, rather, it seems you wish to recolonize them.
Makes sense that you run away.
like this
TVA likes this.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •"Sucking dick" as an insult is homophobic because the root is in shame. Shame, because sexual favors are seen as "subservient," which also has roots in misogyny. Given that I display my pronouns as he/they, it's pretty clearly directed in a manner that tried to depict me in a "shameful" position giving sexual favors to men.
Given that I am also pansexual, this is worse, though they had no way to know.
Tangentially, "kissing ass" has similar roots. Further still, even after having it pointed out, they defended their actions. Certainly not actions I would want a moderator of queer communities to have.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Absurd.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I understand how it could be insulting as a command. “Go suck a dick” implies that it’s an undesirable activity to be used as punishment.
I don’t understand the homophobia in using sucking dick like kissing ass, swinging from their nuts, or cucking. They are interchangeable in both context and sexuality.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Again, the root is that performing sexual favors for someone you are supporting or defending is in shame. The source of this shame, is that society sees such an action in a negative light. If you say someone supporting someone is sucking them off, it implies that they are taking a shameful action that if discovered they would be embarrassed.
It weaponizes society's homophobia to silence others. On top of being rude, it's based in misogyny and homophobia.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •How is it homophobic if someone told me, a straight man, that I’m kissing a woman’s ass? How do you even know my sexual preference in the first place?
I could understand claims of sexism in general, but homophobia is not all-encompassing to your point of shame.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •So the only way to use a sexually charged analogy for sidling without being homophobic is to ensure the sexual act differed from the subject’s sexual preference if they’re homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual, but aligned with their sexual preference if they’re heterosexual?
Also, I thought pronouns only assisted in determining gender. How could I know your sexual preference simply by knowing your gender?
I’m pretty sure you’re asking for more awareness and consideration than most people are willing to provide.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •It's a very common insult, so it's difficult to address directly. When analyzing an insult, you have to analyze why it's insulting. Why is it that sexual acts based on service specifically are common? Because the service aspect is primary. They specifically didn't say I was "railing Castro" or anything, such an accusation implies dominance and manliness, in a way, while being submissive is shameful. It brings to mind the historical treatment of women as subservient to men, and the historical classification of homosexual men as "feminized."
Consider it this way: why would someone not want to be accused of sucking someone off, vs being accused of being a loyal dog? Where is the distinction? The latter focuses on dehumanization, the former focuses on sexual hierarchy, misogyny, and homophobia.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I think submission is the point. Like kissing ass or cucking, the analogy is meant to express subservience. One-sided sexual favors fit the bill.
The problem may be in determining which submissive acts are appropriate for all sexual preferences.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to BrainInABox • • •Acemod
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Acemod • • •I picked up on your intentions, believe me, but the origins for why it is insulting is rooted in shame, misogyny, and homophobia. To copy my comment:
"Sucking dick" as an insult is homophobic because the root is in shame. Shame, because sexual favors are seen as "subservient," which also has roots in misogyny. Given that I display my pronouns as he/they, it's pretty clearly directed in a manner that tried to depict me in a "shameful" position giving sexual favors to men.
Given that I am also pansexual, this is worse, though they had no way to know.
Tangentially, "kissing ass" has similar roots. Further still, even after having it pointed out, they defended their actions. Certainly not actions I would want a moderator of queer communities to have.
HikingVet
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to HikingVet • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
HikingVet
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to HikingVet • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
BrainInABox
in reply to HikingVet • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Acemod
in reply to BrainInABox • • •Goes from a golden view of cuba under fidel to saying he wasn't free from sin and all the false accusations of what I am.
You're a clown .
BrainInABox
in reply to Acemod • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Acemod • • •I have a positive view of Cuba and Castro, and believe them to be working towards immense progress. I additionally believe that they are unduely attacked, overly so, because of being Socialists and the US' interest in recolonizing them.
Your accusation was that it was authouritarian to jail fascists, slavers, and the right-wing American Death Squads, to which I can only think is a defense of letting them run free and murder everyone.
ShinkanTrain
in reply to Acemod • • •HikingVet
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
BrainInABox
in reply to HikingVet • • •ShinkanTrain
in reply to HikingVet • • •HikingVet
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
HikingVet
in reply to BrainInABox • • •don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
BrainInABox
in reply to HikingVet • • •Jerkface (any/all)
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Jerkface (any/all) • • •I see that now, but it was admittedly tough to grasp at first. Cowbee was able to clarify for me in another thread on this post. It may be helpful for others.
Cowbee [he/they]
2025-01-10 13:59:27
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to Acemod • • •I cannot but defend the authoritarian, nay, the stalinist prohibition on using handcuffs in prisons. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing prisoners get what they deserve, to know that they are forced to do what they want to, to know that they have to work if they feel like it.
(This is a sarcasm)
BrainInABox
in reply to Acemod • • •Acemod
in reply to BrainInABox • • •A .ml user defending an authoritarian reigme? Big surprise there.
Criticism of the defense of an authoritarian regime is not the defense of fascism.
Nice false equalivance.
Edit: point out where I defend Batista or fascism.
BrainInABox
in reply to Acemod • • •Acemod
in reply to BrainInABox • • •Lol lol lol.
You got upset that I don't like the government of cuba. Never have, even before they were authoritarian communist.
Oh no... an internet communist calling me homophobic as an ad hominem. So edgy.
BrainInABox
in reply to Acemod • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Acemod • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •What are you talking about? The point of comparing Fidel’s actions and the commenter’s analogy was to illustrate the severity of Castro’s actions by comparison, not minimize the offensive analogy. They’re also aggressively berating the other person, unlike your genuine attempt at connection in the other thread.
Your comment feels like bad faith. If you’re genuinely stating that my comment implies that homophobic analogies are justified by Castro’s atrocities, I’ll delete it. I have no interest in offending an entire group of people.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •The user you are replying to has only had issue with Castro "jailing political dissidents," who were supporters of the fascist (and homophobic) slaver Batista regime. When this was pointed out, they never spoke out against it.
I assert that the Communists taking power was good for the people of Cuba, and that those like Castro are demonized because they liberated Cuba from colonizers, slavers, and fascists. Castro, however, was not a saint free from sin, merely a far better person than Batista with the Cuban people at heart.
I of course detest homophobia, and don't erase that. However, it remains important to recognize that homosexuality was illegal in Batista's reign, and that the system Castro helped build was the one that ultimately passed the current Family Code that is among the best for the LGBT community on the planet.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •Given that you already know that I'm pansexual and presumably know that the hill the user you replied to has chosen to die on the hill of defending Batista and the fascists jailed by Castro, one has to see that you calling me hypocritical for calling them out on their use of homophobic insults without them bring up anything about Castro with respect to homosexuality is a minimization of their homophobia.
In this case, again, it was thanks to the democratic institutions put in place by the Communists that even allowed homosexuality to be legalized, rather than continuing to be enslaved and colonized.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Again, not to me. My comment was regarding BrainInaBox’s treatment of another user. Had they not repeatedly and angrily vilified the other user, maybe their point would’ve been heard.
You should teach them diplomacy and respect if you really want to support the message. They didn’t want to hear it from me.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Which is exactly why I asked your opinion five comments ago. Lol
All I’m saying is you’ve got a person saying “what you said is homophobic and you’re a fucking idiot bigot if you don’t listen” in the same breath as “Fedel held votes but I don’t have proof and anything you say is stupid imperialist propaganda,” while fully aware of how Castro treated homosexuals, isn’t really the most compelling stance and may be deserving of the same condescension they’re dishing out.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Again, I wasn’t defending the victim, I was criticizing the attacker. When presented with one person unintentionally offending someone, and another repeatedly verbally attacking them in retaliation, one must choose which evil to criticize.
If the person committing the repeated verbal attacks were the homophobe, then they’d be the one I’d criticize first. A strong moral compass and delusions of superiority are in no way justification for verbal attacks.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •disguy_ovahea
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Agree to disagree. There’s nothing compelling about condescension, belittlement, and name calling, and it’s frankly discrediting to any message it’s attached.
But hey, you do you.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Acemod • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to disguy_ovahea • • •This is entirely false. Life expectancies rose dramatically, slavery was abolished, literacy rates rose dramatically, and the economy was democratized under Castro. To claim Castro is "no better than" the US backed fascist slaver is incredibly out of touch with reality.
Further, global trade is a necessity. No country in the Global North runs on its own, rather, they function based on Imperialism and plunder the Global South. If, say, France were to be cut off from the countries it plunders, it would collapse. The resiliance of the Socialist system therefore has proven itself.
You should read up on Cuban Democracy. Not only is Cuba now more democratic than under Batista, a fascist slaver US puppet, Cuba is more democratic than countries like the United States.
How do elections work in Cuba?
en.granma.culike this
TVA likes this.
PolandIsAStateOfMind
Unknown parent • • •How does democracy in Cuba work?
cuba-solidarity.org.uklike this
TVA likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
Unknown parent • • •like this
TVA and Dessalines like this.
bdonvr
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •I visited Cuba some months ago. Amazing what they can and have done better than supposedly "first world" countries like the US in terms of healthcare, houselessness, etc. Of course they also have many issues but almost all of them can be traced to the blockade.
The blockade is utterly indefensible. A crime against humanity.
Evilsandwichman [none/use name]
in reply to bdonvr • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Evilsandwichman [none/use name] • • •Kras Mazov
in reply to Evilsandwichman [none/use name] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to bdonvr • • •BrainInABox
Unknown parent • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
Jerkface (any/all)
Unknown parent • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Jerkface (any/all) • • •Count Regal Inkwell
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Count Regal Inkwell • • •ZombiFrancis
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Castro's reign was pretty marked with attempted coups, assassinations, and outright invasion. You know, the standard cold war experience.
The whole 'make life as hard as possible so the people have no choice but overthrow their government' strategy hasn't really been effective. Ever.
MarxMadness
in reply to ZombiFrancis • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ZombiFrancis • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
davel
in reply to ZombiFrancis • • •Jerkface (any/all)
Unknown parent • • •Jakeroxs
Unknown parent • • •Have you been paying attention at all?
Trump is literally actively "joking" about annexing Canada this week, and they've been exporting MAGA brain rot to Canada for years.
Trump also threatened to unilaterally invade/bomb Mexico to attack cartels.
How is that not directly interfering with "free and fair elections"
𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •No candidate for the Cuban national assembly has ever lost an election though?
Cuba selects a candidate for each seat, and voters can either approve or disapprove them (requiring a new candidate to be chosen). But this has never happened in Cuban history.
BrainInABox
Unknown parent • • •Correct, which is why westerners should shut the fuck up and stop giving their uneducated opinions about whether other countries elections are "free and fair" (ie. Result in the outcome America wants.)