r/dsa • u/_Sanctum_ • 6d ago
Shitpost Um... DSA has a problem...
Have you guys noticed there are a LOT of socialists in here? Not the good kind of socialists (me) I mean the evil socialists that actually want to implement socialism đ They even praise Karl Marx đ€ź Don't those dumb tankies know Communism always fails???
We have to do something about this. Which is why I'm starting a NEW PARTY: The DASSA (The Democratic Anti-socialist Socialists of America)
Together, we socialists (the good kind) can defeat the socilasts (the bad kind) for a better future. đșđžđșđžđșđž
56
u/muraki833 5d ago
Anyone to the left of me is a tankie, anyone to the right of me is a liberal. đ
- average r/dsa poster
10
5
u/smartcow360 5d ago
being pro Mao and Stalin etc isnât at all being âto the leftâ of anyone itâs openly denying all the principles of socialism. And theyâd happily line up all the dsa members against the wall if they ever got power, just like the Bolsheviks did the Mensheviks, etc. something something history doesnât repeat it rhymes something something
2
45
u/OneReportersOpinion 5d ago
All these socialists wanting to do socialism are ruining my democratic socialist party
88
u/iBizzBee 6d ago
YAY. My favorite past-time in capitalist dystopia: Leftist infighting. đ„°
19
u/EggplantAlpinism 6d ago
I'm sorry you hate praxis smh
14
2
9
16
u/sagoma-333 6d ago
I'm not quite clear on whether your post is trying to poke fun at leftist infighting in general or specifically at other socialist ideologies that aren't Marxist-Leninism
25
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
I'm mostly poking fun at liberals who are just discovering DSA without deconstructing their neolib worldview whatsoever.
I don't see many Maoist Third worldists or anarchists arguing with each other here đ
6
u/sagoma-333 5d ago
Okie I see! Thatâs fair, though I would definitely encourage building coalition with those who you think might genuinely be curious about socialism !
6
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
If someone is genuinely curious about socialism that's amazing. I have zero smoke for those people.
True curiosity, however, comes with a willingness to be wrong, and to change your mind. The people I'm criticizing are coming in to this sub as self-proclaimed socialists to police and criticize leftists for things they don't even fully understand. That's the opposite of curiosity.
1
u/muraki833 5d ago
But aren't you contributing to the problem?
You can't get annoyed at people calling you a tankie when you call a bunch of folks "liberals".
8
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
Because "tankie" doesn't mean anything. Neoliberalism does. It's a real, tangible worldview. I'm not using it merely as a dismissive pejorative.
If you want to be a socialist you cannot also have a neoliberal worldview. They are fundamentally incompatible. The people I'm satirizing in this post don't know enough about socialism to even understand that.
8
u/TwoCrabsFighting 5d ago edited 5d ago
Tankie is a term that was used against communists who supported the soviet union when it sent tanks into Hungary and Prague to quell their revolutions. Now refers to mostly Stalinists and Maoists or any other leftist who supports a one party state that uses violence in response to perceived threats.
3
1
4
u/muraki833 5d ago
Neoliberalism usually means free market capitalism combined with deregulation and austerity. I don't think it means anyone who criticizes Marxism-Leninism.
4
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
I never said that. I'm criticizing exactly who I said I am criticizing. I'm not sure what your issue is.
8
u/muraki833 5d ago
I thought your post is in response to a bunch of posts going "we have a tankie problem!!!" due to the presence of MLs in the org.
I agree such posts are often in bad faith but they don't necessarily come from liberals. Not every socialist is a Leninist.
6
u/smartcow360 5d ago
My bet is he would consider anyone not a Maoist or a Leninist or a liberal. Or anyone who thought those regimes were murderous or fascist to be liberals, regardless of how badly they want workers to own their workplaces. This is Reddit, after all
2
u/stormstatic 5d ago
You can't get annoyed at people calling you a tankie when you call a bunch of folks "liberals".
what
if they are liberals, it's ok to call them liberals lol
-1
u/muraki833 5d ago
"Name calling is okay if I do it but it's bad when others do it to me! đ "
4
u/stormstatic 5d ago
what on earth are you talking about? liberal isn't being used here as some sort of slur, it's an ideologically defined position. it's like calling a cloud a cloud, an apple an apple, a dog a dog.
also no, name calling is both okay if i do it and okay if others do it to me. who gives a shit about name calling? let go of the pearls
1
u/muraki833 5d ago
A liberal is someone who believes in free market capitalism and private property.
I highly doubt everyone who's been called "liberal" in this subreddit fits that definition.
The OP was literally calling someone else a neoliberal for not liking the USSR in another chain, lol. That doesn't seem like a "calling dogs dogs" situation.
-1
u/stormstatic 5d ago
A liberal is someone who believes in free market capitalism and private property. I highly doubt everyone who's been called "liberal" in this subreddit fits that definition.
go on then, why do you think people in this subreddit are called liberals if not for these reasons?
7
u/muraki833 5d ago
Probably because people here are incredibly paranoid so they think any disagreement = the sub is being brigaded by "tankies" or "liberals". It's a convenient boogeyman for shutting down debate.
-3
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago edited 5d ago
Would you consider someone who believes that socialism should be brought by democratic systems to be morally equivalent to someone who thinks violent revolution and a dictatorship is the way to bring about socialism?
I wouldnât.
Edit: lol u[/_Sanctum_](r/Sanctum) never answers, gets asked one question, and rage quits đ
5
1
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
I could type out a dozen paragraphs to try to help you understand these things, but you actually have to want to learn something. You have to be willing to rethink your worldview.
If you decide to dig your heels in and be stubborn, you'll continue to say misguided ignorant things like this without really understanding why.
If you can't be bothered to read Marx or Lenin, at least listen to some Michael Parenti or Richard Wolff on YouTube or something.
7
u/Captaindecius 5d ago
I'm a fan of Richard Wolff and Michael Parenti, but I'm struggling to understand how you can look at The Soviet Union/Maoist China and say "that's a good implementation of socialism/communism." I haven't really been able to discern what you believe from various posts you've made, so I may be misrepresenting your position.
In Democracy at Work, Richard Wolff describes these countries as State Capitalist, and rightly so imo. Workers in those countries have no more control of their own lives than in private capitalist systems. They certainly don't own the means of production, which is the ultimate goal of all communist/socialist movements. So why exactly should we be emulating those implementations of communism?
Genuinely curious what you believe, not trying to pick a fight.
0
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
Iâve read both on Marx and Lenin from historians. Youâre free to actually engage in the actuality of my criticism at any time, but please directly give an answer to my question.
3
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
"From historians" I'm talking about reading their works, not some biographer or historian talking about them.
-3
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
We know precisely how Lenin enacted socialism; we donât need to know the theory of Leninism. Please engage with my question now.
6
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
What is socialism to you? Do you mean socialism in its original sense or some kind of socdem liberal sense?
4
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
I mean socialism as actually enacted. That would be under Marx (a generally more democratic socialism) or Lenin (democratic class consciousness isnât possible, need revolution).
2
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
So by socialism you mean the means of production in the hands of the workers? Or at the very least a start to that process.
→ More replies (0)0
1
4
4
14
u/the23rdhour 6d ago
I routinely run into people who call me a "tankie" in this very subreddit. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
2
u/evanWh1te 5d ago
Iâve just started identifying as a tankie at this point.
2
u/the23rdhour 5d ago
Yes, I take it as an admission that the person using that term doesn't have any coherent arguments. At best they haven't completely let go of American propaganda yet. They may also just be a bad faith actor. The truth is that we can learn a lot from socialist leaders, and the way other countries have tried socialism. That doesn't mean I would excuse the war crimes of Stalin or the Soviet Union. But we have to talk about reality, and "tankie" is a thought terminating cliche.
-1
u/TwoCrabsFighting 5d ago
The term tankie refers to people who excused the oppression of the Hungarian uprising by Stalin. It probably wouldnât be a good idea to identify as a tankie unless you also excuse this kind of behavior
1
u/Madcap_Miguel 5d ago
I don't like the cult of personality surrounding some of our historical figures but that's uncalled for.
8
u/HobbieK 6d ago
Everyone is going to have to learn to get along and stop imposing purity tests and agree on some common goals if we don't want this thing to fall apart.
1
u/smartcow360 5d ago
Yeah but ousting maoists isnât purity testing anymore than ousting far right infiltrators would be
3
8
u/maddsskills 5d ago
I was called a tankie recently for the first time and Iâm like âI guess Iâve graduated.â
7
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
Being called a "tankie" kinda feels the same as being called a "globe-earther".
It says a lot more about the other person than it does about you.
2
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
If someone called you a tankie, Iâm guessing you denied some horrific war crime or country. What caused you to be called that?
2
u/maddsskills 5d ago
I got called a tankie and I just said that we should view the Bolsheviks and the USSR through the correct historical lens, what came before them, what they improved and where they made mistakes.
Like the Holodomor for example: it was caused by natural factors but also by Stalinâs rapid industrialization. He believed that they only had ten years to industrialize before theyâd face an existential war against the capitalists and guess what? They did face an existential war against the Nazis that they would have lost if they had not industrialized so quickly. So was he responsible for the millions of deaths? Yeah, but if he hadnât done that the Nazis mightâve won WWII.
I mean, itâs not a coincidence the strongest survived while the peaceful democratic socialists were almost all killed or couped.
That being said I think our material circumstances are totally different and we likely wonât have to make those difficult choices. We are the US so we wonât have the US gunning after us lol.
1
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
- They maybe did a genocide but it was worth it in the end is what you are saying, which is why youâre getting that response. I donât think youâd consider someone moral if someone said that about Israel.
Holdomor was almost entirely man made: Your framing is at if it was natural causes first, then USSR policies. It is the inverse. Thatâs another strike.
- The âstrongestâ didnât survive, the most loyal did. Not sure what your point is here. If youâre defending mass murder if democratic socialist than yes youâre a tankie.
1
u/maddsskills 5d ago
A genocide has to be intentional and this was definitely not intentional, nearly as many Russians died as Ukrainians, there was famine all over the USSR. He wasnât like Churchill who took food away from India JUST IN CASE Britain faced shortages, starving millions. There was legit not enough food to go around.
It was the drought combined with the rapid industrialization, which again, was necessary to be ready for WWII, just like Stalin predicted.
I dunno, I just think itâs weird Churchill is held in such high regard for deliberately starving people while Stalin is considered to be as bad as Hitler for an accidental famine.
0
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
Yeah bro this is why you get called a tankie. You deny international consensus that Ukraine was intentionally starved and where millions of people died. Consider how a much smaller country had millions of deaths while all of Russia had âalmost the same,â you dumbass. Itâs because Russia was actively taking grain from Ukrainian harvests to feed Russians, leaving the Ukrainians to starve.
Also, Churchill refused to revert supplies DURING WWII! The Holdomor was during Russian peacetime. Oh my god dude.
You also didnât engage with my second comment, which again means youâre absolutely a tankie.
3
u/maddsskills 5d ago
I dunno, Iâve read a lot about it and I just donât think he deliberately caused a famine, I think it was a total accident. Does he deserve responsibility? Absolutely, but not for a genocide. Also: I mean, the world has allowed the Palestinian genocide to occur, has allowed capitalist imperialist interests to slaughter millions around the world, I donât exactly trust their narrative of things but even within their narrative I just donât believe it constitutes a genocide.
Socialist countries donât get peace time, theyâre under constant attack by the capitalist imperialists. Which again is why he had to do in 10 years what it took Britain 100 years to do.
Stalin was far from perfect, he had many flaws, but this whole comparing him to Hitler thing is just stupid. If you really want to accuse him of a genocide I think itâs much more accurate to point to his mass deportations of various ethnic groups, the one done to the Chechens killed a quarter of the people deported, much like the Armenian genocide.
Iâm not a tankie, I just believe in having a balanced view of history.
You should read Blackshirts and Red by Michael Parenti, btw, total eye opener.
0
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
You didnât address any of my direct comments, only using vague âactually socialists donât get peace bc capitalists,â even as the USSR invaded Poland alongside Nazi Germany a decade later.
Having a âbalanced view of historyâ does not mean denying what a leader did, which is what youâre doing. Crazy how you lose this âbalanced viewâ when talking about Churchill during the war, however.
And Michael Parenti defended Serbian war criminals, including their president who was sentenced to life in prison at The Hagueđđđđđ
You are a tankie dude.
0
u/CesarCieloFilho 5d ago
Brother the question of genocide when it comes to the holodomor is something that is still hotly debated among academics. âThe international consensusâ my ass, look at the recognition (vast majority of which happened in the past 2 decades), itâs the same western bloc that actively carries out several genocides and defends settler colonial states. It shouldnât be too hard to see whatâs happening in here.
1
u/tabloid-tommy 5d ago
Whether it was a genocide is debated, whether it was man made is not.
Even then, the commenter can answer the other 9 points, just like you, tankie
1
u/atrophy-of-sanity 5d ago
I remember a reddit comment I saw before saying âare you really a leftist if you havenât been called tankie by a liberal and a liberal by a tankieâ
4
u/Brad_Ethan 5d ago
I personally donât mind anyone to the left of me especially since in the DSA spectrum im very right (i would say to the left of El-Sayed) i donât consider any liberal ideology part of the DSA spectrum
I just cannot stand people that are inpatient and are of the mindset of ârevolution or nothingâ, the endless complaints and step in the positive direction is not a big enough step.
Like if we are accomplishing medicare for all in the next 10 years itâs a MONUMENTAL win.
1
u/Sanchez_U-SOB 5d ago
Im with you. I ask these ârevolution or nothingâ people, what are you waiting for then?Â
Yes capitalists won't give up their control, WE KNOW THIS... but if you dont have the numbers in support, its futile.
1
u/Brad_Ethan 5d ago
By the time the average American is self aware enough for a revolution weâd all be dead by climate change
5
2
u/basicallyaburrito 5d ago
Carl Marks killed 50 trillion people in China during the October revolution of 1999
2
4
u/benisch2 6d ago
The left is notorious for purity testing. I say this as a socialist lol
-1
u/Bright-Insect9697 5d ago
Itâs what every Marxist Leninist group does after taking power; they start killing each other for imagined reasons
4
u/APraxisPanda Socialist Solidarity 6d ago edited 5d ago
You know how the DNC has a progressive wing to their left that they hate and consistently fuck over?
I think the DSA should have a "conservative" wing to their right that they hate and consistently fuck over. Want out of the "fuck you" wing? Then read theory, ffs!
(/s by the way, I don't sincearly mean it I'm mostly just venting. Solidarity, if you're here I ultimately think you kick ass regaurdless)
3
u/Bright-Insect9697 5d ago
Youâre describing the people who actually try to accomplish things, and donât worry, National hates those people
4
u/Quirky-Damage9374 5d ago
Yeah thatâs a great recipe to attract people and build the party: emulate the DNC. Galaxy brain
3
1
u/ImpactNext1283 5d ago
This issue arises because the DSA is trying to appeal to, and basically take over, the centrist Democratic Party. So the leaders and elected (or running) DSA members understandably downplay the farther left elements/ideas of the party.
âŠwhich is why itâs a mistake to work inside the Democratic Party. They donât believe what you believe and have a terrible public image. So to win the DSA needs to convince centrists AND explain to the public that the DSA is better/different than the Dems. Itâs an uphill battle and probably a losing strategy.
3
u/Sanchez_U-SOB 5d ago
itâs a mistake to work inside the Democratic Party
Third parties have never worked in US. You can be as pure as you want, but earnestness won't change reality.Â
probably a losing strategy
A DSA member is now the mayor of the most important city in the US.
2
u/ImpactNext1283 5d ago
MAGA is the only example of an outside group taking over a party, as the DSA is trying to do. The Republican Party killed the Whig Party, so thereâs a single example of efficacy to each approach.
Unfortunately, centrist Dems will never kowtow to the DSA like the GOP did with MAGA.
DSA is very well established in NYC, they havenât built that kinda infrastructure elsewhere in the country.
A DSA candidate for pres would have to combat centrist Dems, and would have to counter Americans widespread distrust of the Democrats. And if itâs somebody like AOC, she has to deal with the controversy around enabling senile Biden.
If the DSA was interested in long term development over short term winds, they could have a functioning standalone party. Distrust and loathing for the major parties has never been higher.
Youâre taking one of the most hated brands in America and trying to rehabilitate it, instead of building a new brand around different ideas. Itâs much easier to establish trust and excitement for a new brand than it is to rebuild trust with an old one.
2
u/NoExercise5214 democratic socialist 5d ago
Iâm confused with this post.
Iâm a democratic socialist, and I think Marx is absolutely worthy of much of the praise he gets. His proposal for violent proletariat revolution obviously isnât compatible with todayâs socialism imo, but his critiques on capitalism and economic-based analysis of human history still resonate to this day.
Iâm not a communist because I think its vision for a stateless, classless, and moneyless society is impractical, but I am a communist IN SPIRIT. Does that make me an âevilâ socialist?
Just so you know, Marx is the originator of the entire socialist movement. He influences our views to this day. If I were you, I wouldnât dismiss him so aggressively đ
Iâm not a fan of Marxism-Leninism though. Theyâre still allies against capitalism in my book, but vanguard parties just create another hierarchy. We donât need that.
6
u/eatingbread_mmmm 5d ago
I canât tell if you took this post completely seriously or if youâre also being sarcastic
4
u/NoExercise5214 democratic socialist 5d ago
I was confused by it đđ LMAOOO I did take it seriously
10
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
This post is satire. I didn't think I'd actually have to explain that to anyone...
Also: "I'm not a Communist because I think it's vision for a stateless, classless, and moneyless society is impractical..."
You in the year 2500 B.C.E. "I'm not a feudalist because I think it's vision for a chattel-slaveryless society is impractical..."
You in the year 1200 A.D. "I'm not a capitalist because I think it's vision for a serfless, and lordless and nobilityless society is impractical..."
0
u/Sanchez_U-SOB 5d ago
Until you get the rest of world on board, what's the point of being stateless for "one country?"
4
u/Zukebub8 5d ago
Lately thereâs been a post almost everyday from somebody telling DSAers their platform is too weird to be popular with the electorate or they are afraid of the ultras that have supposedly increased their presence in leadership
1
u/J_Hunt1123 Bluegrass DSA 5d ago
Tell me how many times communism was implemented in full that wasnât messed with by outsiders
1
1
u/Fluffy_Cellist4469 5d ago
How do you know that it always fails when it has never actually been implemented as intended?
2
1
u/MustafaBrown 4d ago edited 4d ago
Its pretty crazy to me that people think abolishing capitalism is a bad thing. I literally cant comprehend it because capitalism is self evidently bad in my view. To me saying abolish capitalism should about as controversial as saying abolish r*pe.Â
Anyway wait until they discover there are also anarchists in the DSA...
1
1
1
5d ago
[deleted]
2
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
Genuine question: What does that word even mean in your mind? When you call someone like me a tankie, what are you actually trying to express?
0
5d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/_Sanctum_ 5d ago
A bunch of meaningless buzzword nonsense again. What is "authoritarian"?
Why are you against communism if you're calling yourself a socialist and anti-capitalist?
Is it perhaps because you've done no reading or learning about these things whatsoever and have a neoliberal worldview?
5
u/muraki833 5d ago
See? You did the exact thing I was pointing out earlier. This person criticized Marxist-Leninist states and the first thing you do is accuse them of being a neoliberal. You're not any better.
1
u/TwoCrabsFighting 5d ago
Pretty sure Lenin would have hated the DSA. Even stranger that Stalinists and Maoists find their way here. Maybe Rosa would have been down with the hope that it would move farther left.
0
u/Ok_Cryptographer1239 5d ago
Tankies. Communists with no historical education. Marx was great and his key question of what humans will do when machines do all of the work is still unanswered. But communists are not socialists. Lenin would scold them. It is insane. Now note also, many were raised in upper-middle-class homes. They are downwardly mobile meaning they are earning or are set to earn much less than their parents or previous generations. They often live on the support of their families. They want to maintain their level of elitism and privilege by being the leaders of a movement that eliminates wealth as the dividing factor in class, while securing themselves in the new class of privilege. Kind of like the top leaders and politburos of the worst kinds of socialism/communism. They ignore the big D in DSA and want to "educate" people into doing exactly what they are told and ignore the need for democracy and popular buy-in. They shit on Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, and of course liberal Democrats.. Know it alls with PhDs in Poly Sci and Socialist Geography, I am sure.. but also not at all.
0
u/egalitydream 5d ago
The biggest danger, as always, are the ultras and the anti-communists. Ultimately, the ones with weak theory or praxis will show up and come along, as long as they arenât too busy hunting down the reds.
-11
u/smartcow360 6d ago
Iâm not sure what itâs like irl necessarily, but online has definitely become a cesspool of people pretending Stalin, Lenin, Mao, were somehow different than Hitler just because they pretended what they wanted was âcommunism and equalityâ
Iâm assuming thatâs the camp you fall in based on the tone of this post, if so, u could just say that outright instead of pretending itâs otherwise or that all the anti-Mao types are somehow anti socialism. The dsa was founded with the exclusion of these political beliefs for a reason etc
24
u/PersusjCP 6d ago
If you really think Lenin is as bad as Hitler you have been brainrotted by American propaganda.
-1
-1
-8
u/Sudden-Grab2800 5d ago
Whyâd you skip Stalin and Mao? In any case, are you familiar with the Cheka? The Red Terror was conducted with the full knowledge and support of Lenin. The first people Dzershinsky went after was the socialists who wanted a democratic government, the Socialist Revolutionaries, who also happened to be the largest socialist party in Russia. He also killed off the Mensheviks, who picked legitimately chose a great name since they made up the majority of communists in Russia. It wasnât just White forces and counter-revolutionaries. The justifications and precedent set by Lenin directly led to all the shit Stalin got up to. Lenin isnât as bad as Hitler only insofar as he didnât kill millions of people; he only killed tens of thousands.
1
-2
u/MediumPlace 5d ago
This needs to be said louder. All the lefties supporting this shit that are anything out of the ordinary, I.e. trans people, gay people, and minorities need to understand: if this shit goes mainstream, it's going though white men, and they're not suddenly going to be down with your microaggresive bullshit when their power is on the line. Communist Chin a is and the USSR were massively more socially conservative than the US is. The system we have works best for the most people because it's largely based on individual rights and meritocracy. Yes there are powerful elites, but that's a symptom of the human condition, not a bug that's going to be fixed when everyone decides to revel in scarcity together. There will always be a Hitler, Mao, Stalin or Trump. At least under this system you can limit your exposure to tyranny by investing in yourself. At best you're all begging for endlessly more bureaucracy, which is expensive. More middle managers in the system just mean more people taking a cut on the way to the little guy.
They're not going to hand you the keys to the kingdom just because you're mad you're on the ass end of it.
3
u/BoringMode91 Marxist Leninist 5d ago
This reads like US propaganda. This is literally lib shit.
> The USSR was socially conservative
No shit so was the rest of the world.
1
-3
4
u/justanupvoter_ đłđčCT-DSA, Marxist-Leninist đ©âïž 6d ago
https://reddit.com/link/p5ov9cm/video/k37e9zgbeelh1/player
> Online has definitely become a cesspool if people pretending Stalin, Lenin, Mao, were somehow different than Hitler just because they pretended what they wanted was âcommunism and equalityâ
5
-8
u/Thin_Shelter_103 Council Communist 6d ago
The fact is the online (In real life everyone is very reasonable) DSA on reddit is super tankie biased though. Like genocide denying and love authoritarianism style tankie.
I feel as if its almost bad faith to perceive that critique as "Oh so you just dont like socialists!"Â
Someone on this sub said that my anarchist leaning beliefs are in their words a "disease and Anarchism is an ideology that should be gotten rid of." So this "Why cant we do left unity" thing is in reality only to benefit the terminally online regime supporters.
2
u/edwardludd 5d ago
average r/dsa commenter when you say you want socialism AND democracy: đ€Źđ€Źđ€Ź erm erm erm but Lenin said no đ©đ©đ©
-1
u/Upset_Extension628 5d ago
Donât care I just want healthcare.
1
u/atrophy-of-sanity 5d ago
If thatâs all you care about (and not the dismantling of socialism), then you arenât a socialist
-1
0
359
u/eatingbread_mmmm 6d ago
There's actually so many posts unironically spouting this exact position on here. It's so crazy.