InappropriateEmote [comrade/them, undecided]

Have you ever experienced a stun grenade? Tear gas?

I have experienced tear gas, yes.

Have you been grabbed by a MAGAt as he screamed “RACE TRAITOR” in your face? Have you had your camera grabbed by a Qultist as he screamed “FUCK YOU FAKE NEWS” in your face?

I’ve been beaten (once severely) and abused by chuds for who I am, not for being to them a race traitor. I’ve endured much worse from pigs (probably MAGA themselves, but who knows) acting on the orders of Democrats.

Don’t fucking presume to know me.

lol I didn’t. The only thing I “presumed” about you was that you are a liberal, and considering everything you said (which it seems you did have the sense to since delete), that was a fair and correct assessment, not a presumption. But it’s rich that you would tell me not to presume anything about you when everything you said in your now-deleted comment was a disgusting presumption and misrepresentation of socialists’, their positions, motivations, and actions. You were even using quotation marks around things you think socialists say (including “wah wah” crying) and how “lazy” they are for refusing to vote for war criminals conducting genocide. So yet again… your accusation (that I was presuming to know you) was not only totally false, it was a description of what you yourself were doing. Every Accusation a Confession.

If you actually are out there in the streets fighting MAGA chuds - good, I hope you beat the shit out of them. But when you’re not occupied with that, learn some actual leftist theory and do some self crit rather than defending and upholding your enemies and ridiculing, disparaging, and lying about the people who are not only consistent with their principles in opposition to genocide, but who are out there fighting the fash in the streets too.

Because they’re fucking lazy and would rather shitpost on Lemmy et al instead of doing something.

Liberals, every accusation a confession. It is objectively and demonstrably the coward “lesser evil” voters who are lazy and refuse to do anything of value, patting themselves on the back and thinking they’ve done their “civic duty” by penciling in the bubble endorsing genocide so they can call it a day. Socialists are the ones who realize that actual work has to be done for any material difference to ever be made and you have to constantly fight systemic injustice and materially help marginalized people rather than do a little masturbatory performative nod to the status quo once every couple (or every 4) years. The people you’re calling lazy are the ones who are out there volunteering their labor to provide food and other essentials for unhoused people or people otherwise impoverished by the system of exploitation that both republican and democrat fascists force upon the world. It’s the socialists who are out in the street doing what they can to build parallel power structures that will continue to help actual people while cloistered, privileged, treat-obsessed liberals sit content in their bubble, pretending they spoke truth to power by voting for that same power.

What’s immediately hilarious about your lie is that most socialists did vote (despite knowing how insufficient it is to accomplish literally anything worthwhile) they just didn’t vote for the blue donkey version of the fascists that liberals like you worship, they voted for De La Cruz (or La Riva before her). So saying that it’s socialists who are lazy for not voting is an immediate tell that you’re either painfully ignorant or cynically lying (likely both) since most socialists did do that ineffectual bare minimum thing you foolishly think is so important, they just aren’t stupid cowards like the liberals who pretend they did such hard work by filling out a ballot for fascists. Thanks for outing yourself as being the one guilty of everything you just accused socialists of.

lol, no. No one has ever been banned from .ml for “criticizing Russia.” Even the communist admins of .ml have no love for modern Russia which is a capitalist country, they just know that throwing every single working class Ukrainian person into the meat grinder is the best way forward. And “tankies,” as the above commenter is using the term, are just people who recognize that history existed prior to February of 2022.

The advantage gravity has is that it never quite goes away, no matter how far you are.

That’s true of all the fundamental forces, though. They all drop off over distance with inverse square laws. Like if you had two lone electrons in an otherwise empty universe, their electromagnetic repulsion would also persist indefinitely at 1/r^2 strength, just like gravity. The difference is that our universe has near-perfect charge neutrality at large scales.

Never in my life would I have imagined that someone would try to apply dialectical materialism to physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Lenin’s_contributions

No. electrons and protons dont attract because they have a history or because of the conditions surrounding them

What are you even talking about, yes they do. Two particles will interact if their shared history (light cone) includes them being in the right conditions (like proximity to each other, opposing charge, etc.) for that to happen.

they do so because of intrinsic properties of themselves

Their intrinsic properties are part of the conditions that cause any given particles to behave the way they do. The environment they find themselves in, such as what other particles they are in the presence of, very obviously plays just as much an important part of the role in determining their behavior as their intrinsic properties. And those conditions at any point in time exist because of the history that led to those conditions - which is just as true of leptons and bosons as it is of kings and peasants.

they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a struggle or process of any kind

Yes, they absolutely did! “Struggle” would be an inappropriate (but still not necessarily inaccurate) term for it just because it carries the implication of intent and human emotions. But dialectical materialism, which is a metaphysical framework, absolutely does not rely on intention in any way - in fact it’s largely defined by the fact that it does not rely on intention since that would be idealism. But that’s just a matter of odd phrasing, because if you take the word “struggle” out, and just say “they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a process of any kind,” you would be completely, even incomprehensibly wrong. Of course they arrived at their current situation through a process. It could be any measure of complexity in the process that led to their conditions, but at it’s most simple, it’s literally just cause and effect. True of human society, true of particle physics.

they just are the way they are

As is literally everything else.

and dialectics tells u nothing about how electrons and protons will behave. Dialectical materialism is just one way to look at the world and it is good and accurate when used to describe somethings and useless when used to describe others, its a model like any other, it is more dear to our hearts than most models but that doesnt make it perfect or a theory of everything.

Dialectical materialism is a metaphysical framework. The issue here is not that we have to use it to describe particle interactions or predict their outcomes, but that particle physics and dialectical materialism are absolutely compatible with one another. It is even perfectly reasonable to look at the interaction between electrons and protons through a dialectical materialist lens, as @[email protected] pointed out, by considering that interaction as a contradiction and resolution relationship, (law of unity and conflict of opposites), even negation of the negation.

It’s political inadequacy aside, let’s just take a look at the first few sentences of wikipedia’s entry on Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism is a materialist theory based upon the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that has found widespread applications in a variety of philosophical disciplines ranging from philosophy of history to philosophy of science. [emphasis mine]

It’s way too much to quote, but also please note the section on Lenin’s contributions to dialectical materialism, and note how it relates to physics. I do not mean this in a mean-spirited way, but you don’t seem to understand either physics or dialectical materialism. Almost everything you’ve said indicates a deep misunderstanding of both.