Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
296
-
188
-
183
-
175
-
135
-
119
-
117
-
111
-
93
-
86
-
81
-
71
-
69
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
55
-
53
-
53
-
47
-
45
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
-Jean-Paul Sartre (speaking of something applicable to all fascists)
". . .they legitimately do not care whether the words coming out of their mouths are true."
https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
-Texas Republican Party, official 2012 platform
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Jack Black Conservatives have been against every civil rights movement in our history. The Republican party has put a fascist in the Whitehouse with Trump and at least one full-out Nazi (Ms "Jewish Space Lasers") in Congress.
Conservatives have consistently supported fascist coups around the world and government encroachment on civil liberties at home.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
-former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Conservatism only ever pushes for "small government" when doing so increases inequality and decreases the ability for the people in a society to democratically decide how their society will function.
This is because conservatism was created to use the dictatorial way we structure private businesses and market competition to produce neofeudalism after the origional people the term "right-wing" was coined for (the royalists, btw) after they lost against the leftists fighting for liberty, egalitarianism, democratic governments (including constitutional democratic republics), etc.
Oh, and btw, if the abortion debate was really about the lives of fetuses, no progressive alive would be able to match conservatives' advocacy for comprehensive sex-ed, free contraception, and welfare to reduce poverty so parents could afford to raise kids because those are the only things proven to actually lower abortion rates.
Instead, conservatives push abstinence-only education, defund organizations like Planned Parenthood (which, btw, has prevented more abortions than it has helped people get by helping people get contraception), and use the racist steriotype of "welfare queens" to cut support to poor mothers because it's actually about punishing women for sex.
But by all means, tell me more about who's a liar. You make an excellent example to help teach people how BS your ideology is. :)
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons — doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."
-Umberto Eco, 14 Characteristics of Ur-Fascism
That's the actual ideology we're looking at: fascism.
See also:
"even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values."
And
"Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others."
Go watch the first clip at the start of the video again (btw, when you look at the full list of 14, Trump is a textbook example)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Re, allying with Nazis:
"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is "Nazi.""
-A.R. Moxon
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@antred11 let's step back for some perspective. Marital rights include broadly legal recognition of one's family for everything from adoption rights, to family plans (including for things as important as healthcare), immunity from being made to testify about private conversations with your spouce in court, visitation rights (for jails, hospitals, etc), rights to make decisions about things like burial and end of life care when the other person isn't able to, etc etc.
Try imagining what that might mean to a gay couple facing discrimination by people who don't want to acknowledge the legitimacy of that relationship.
Really, try and think of the horror scenarios that can come out of loosing those protections opening people in desperate times up to bigots kicking them while they're down.
I mean it. Take a few minutes to think of a few scenerios of what that might be like for someone who isn't you.
Meanwhile, those tax benefits help couples (most of whom have kids) with the absurd costs of child birth and care in a country with a privatized medical system, no government run daycare, no mandated paid parental leave, and where a huge reason for dropping rates of marriage is the social pressure to have unaffordably expensive weddings.
And your priority isn't expanding those rights so that parents in the US are better able to raise their children or that poly relationships aren't forced to legally treat at least one member of their family as lesser, or even protecting those rights for those who struggled to get them from those who would treat them as 2nd class citizens. You want to tear the who thing down because what? Some rare working-class couple with no intention of having kids might pay slightly less in taxes than you?
Why the fuck do you care?
Since you seem to care so much about being aware of privilage, do you understand how that puts a giant floodlight on yours that that is your priority?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Don't vote for anyone that rigs elections. The integrity of an election is THE most important thing in a democratic country.
Without it, you're not actually citizens, but merely serfs, and your opinion on any issue becomes instantly irrelevant.
This goes double if you're in one of the targeted voter suppression groups (blacks, latinos, and poor for the GOP, and millenials for Hillary's campaign).
By all means, vote in the primaries. Any sensible person would encourage that, but come the general, remember that any candidate that is ok with interfering with the vote should never be voted for, reguardless of what else they "promise" because if you don't win on that issue, you loose on every issue.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The only reason for it is religious. Before 20 weeks, you don't have central nervous system development, which means you don't have a person.
Thought experiment to illustrate. If I were a psycho and I blew off someone's head, but quickly stopped the bleeding and put the body of my victim on life support, am I still a murderer? That person is gone and never coming back but, if you were on the jury, would you let me downgrade my charges to mere assault just because the victim's heart was still beating?
No, because personhood, not the mere biological functions of life, is what matters.
Only religion (and not even scripture) argues that abortion is murder, and the constitution creates a separation of church and state with the 1st amendment and prohibits states from arbitrarily limiting personal liberties, meaning abortions are constitutionally protected.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@youknow9092 so "not everyone is so shallow, but most people are"
Yeah sorry, no. The right is opposed to basic humanitarian rights, and the further right they are, the worse it is. If you vote Republican, you're either too stupid to be attractive, or flatly do not love your wife or anyone of any other identity the GOP demonizes.
Sexually or romanically attracted? Maybe, but if you actually love anyone who's not a straight, white, cis man, you would not vote for a party that hates them.
Sorry, not sorry; Republican voters need therapy, not relationships.
There's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement, but that if you vote GQP, we're far past that and can't even be friends, because you're demonstrating you're not capable of returning even friendship by your political affiliation.
Friends don't vote to strip their friends' basic human rights away.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@whenwedecay frankly, I don't even think he'd make a good sub. Way too insecure, angry, inconsiderate, non-introspective, etc.
Even a bratty sub needs to be able tk read the room to tell how far it's ok to push things and be able to be playful and funny with their particular way of begging for punishment.
Not even a Dom would really have much use for him....and you'd have to gag him the whole time because letting him talk is just asking for a migraine.
It's not even that he's a beta bitch or anything. He's just so thoroughly devoid of desirable qualities of any sort (besides, I guess, things like money) that I can't imagine him being anyone's type, no matter their taste.
Hell, I personally know multiple asexual people who, legit, would be sexier in bed than Ben.
The brain is the biggest and most important sex organ. If that can't rise to the occasion, then the person can't win a sexiness competition against a toy without batteries. (Which is why people who are actually good in bed don't ever see their partner having a toy as competition)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@womanofacertainage5892 you're acting like I don't think the sheriff is also responsible. I do. Everyone facilitating the process is part of it (and in the case of the forclosers, their entire job is to hurt innocent people with less power than them at the behest of those at the top)
The thing you're missing is that if those at the top can count on us to turn on each other like rabid dogs, they will always remain at the top and nothing will ever change. If you want that cycle to break, we have to stop kicking down for table scraps.
And yeah, "financial difficulties" is disturbingly often about people being in danger of living on the streets. As someone who's come very close to that fate when I simultaneously lost nearly all income and remaining social ties at the same time, that is what those words mean to me. I've also avoided decently paying work on moral principle too.
It is easier to say being single and without kids, yes, but that doesn't mean I'm not entirely unfamiliar with what I'm talking about.
On a side note, I don't see why "understandable, but still immoral" is such a stretch for you on this. I expect you'd be able to apply "understandable, but still immoral" to other situations where people hurt other innocents to avoid personal hardship. I also don't know where you seem to have gotten the notion that I don't blame the people at the top more if that implication was intentional.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LittleAl016 canceled in the traditional, television sense, not the "cancel culture" sense.
It's not that complicated, though. Animation is really expensive and almost everything but the simplest animation (so basically everything remotely anime-style) generates a large portion of its revenue from merchandising.
Toys, models (for stuff like Gundam), figurines, posters, ...*sighs* pillowcases 😑, dvd/blueray sets, funkopops, t-shirts, etc, etc. That's where the profit is. What they get from airing the show is mostly just about making back production costs.
Since western cartoons do the majority(?) of their merchandising through toy sales, anything with cross-gender appeal is going to have problems merchandising when toy isles are gender-segregated, because you want to keep all the merch from one franchise together, but then you have to decide if it's a boys show or a girls show. That issue means lower profits for the franchise and an increased likelihood of being replaced by something else.
How we've been setting up our toy isles is why so much western animation has been either re-runs, adult-oriented (typically with very low production values), or absurdly strongly gendered for a very long time, whereas even with all the problems Japan has with anime and gender, even explicitly dividing anime along gender lines as genre (eg shojo/shounen), there's more often cross audience appeal, because they're less reliant on gendered toy isles for profits.
It's also why so much western kids animation that isn't as strongly genderes is seeing a drop in production values to maintain profitability, even if it means a lot of cutting of corners on art, such as the art style change between the Teen Titans series (and often literally by replacing elbows with noodle arms to simplify animation and bring costs down).
Basic market dynamics, really. They stopped making the origional series not because they were out of ideas, but because something else would be more profitable.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, the OP is right. They don't even care about the fetus. They oppose everything that would actually lower abortion rates. They just want to punish women for sex. It really is that simple; they just HATE women.
That's all it's ever been.
Fascism is a death cult. The response to EVERY problem is someone that's not them suffering and/or dying and it will never NOT be that as long as there are 2 people left alive.
It is dangerously naive to chock this up to mere ignorance. We are talking about people who subscribe to an ideology that is a rebellion against the enlightenment in both a moral and intellectual sense. They actually are ideologically opposed to truth and compassion.
They are everything they try to portray the left as.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
-Jean-Paul Sartre (speaking of something applicable to all fascists)
". . .they legitimately do not care whether the words coming out of their mouths are true."
https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
-Texas Republican Party, official 2012 platform
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kruck crusher getting back to "when does it get rights" the best answer, IMO is the development of the central nervous system, which occurs right about the same time as external viability.
Thought experiment to illustrate:
If I had a device from/in the near future which could upload a mind to a supercomputer, but when I used it, it destroyed the brain of the person being uploaded, which would be murder? Emptying a gun into the body left behind or into the computer with the uploaded mind?
Life isn't what's important, personhood is.
Abortion before development of the CNS is ethically no different than taking a brain dead person off life support. Sometimes it's a hard choice to be sure, as human emotions often blur the line between what was, is, and could be, but it's not a murder, as murder requires the end of a person, not just a life.
1
-
1
-
@theflaggeddragon9472 honestly, whether we're talking about a small bill or reversing some rule changes to the way the house operates that hurt progressive politics, or key committee appointments, I don't actually care. There are good options, just pick something that you can win on instead of blowing all your political capital on a performative vote that also feeds into the "it can't pass" narrative.
To top it off, the whole thing is a bluff. Push too hard and they'll pick the furthest right Dem they can find, make deals with the GOP, and with a few Republican votes, nominate someone without the squad. Playing political brinkmanship without a plan to follow through is a really bad idea, and make no mistake, that's what we're talking about.
Also keep in mind that the next 4 years we need to appeal to liberal voters that we're a better choice in 2024. To do that we need to look like we can be realistic enough get things passes and make deals, not look anti-democratic, and let the establishment Dems look disappointing and ineffective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If I were in Sanders shoes, I'd run in the Dem primary again, wait for them to rig things again, then, blow the lid on all the election fraud, claim the wrongdoing freed me from any promises I'd made, formed my own party, and cleaned house in the general, making an irreversible change to the political landscape of the country. (likely throwing at least one of the corporate parties in the dustbin of history with the Whigs)
...I mean, I would have done that in 2016, but still an option.
Not one I'm too optimistic he'll take as that is far more aggressive politics than we normally see from him, admittedly, but it's something he could still do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jeremy Chase if I may offer a strategic disagreement, I think a 2-pronged approach is a superior strategy.
Vote for real progressives in the primary, and if they loose, then vote 3rd party. This does several things:
1st: it gives us 2 cracks at the same election.
2nd: withdrawing our support in the general means that progressive candidates are more likely to win general elections than establishment ones, demonstrating that those policies are popular, not fringe
3rd: likewise, establishment candidates winning the primaries only to more consistently loose the general makes them look fringe
4th: adds costs to rigging any election
5th: keeps us in better contact and communication with democratic voters
At that point, the establishment has to choose between surrendering more and more control until they're phased out, or rigging things so obviously and consistently that they drive away their own voters.
Combine this with some simple, easily relatable statements like "I don't vote for election-rigging war criminals, or those who wish to be such, and don't think that's a high bar to meet" (a defense I've use to justify a Jill Stein vote even in light of Trump) or some other comparably unassailable position means the other has to either deny that such things are important (making themselves take a radical position), argue that the establishment dem doesn't qualify (which opens discussion), or accept that voting 3rd party can be an entirely reasonable and justified stance.
In the real world, the best plans are the most flexible, and a multi-prong attack is more flexible than just focusing 3rd party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neosapien247 criminalize the selling and you still have the black market with unreliable substances (cutting, lacing, and dangerous production methods) and the cartel violence that goes with it working with a bunch of incentives that increase the danger for the users. I'm not saying no rules, but drug prohibition, even just on the distribution end has costs.
As for sex slavery, um yeah, but if that's what we really mean, why are we talking about human trafficking? The crimes are slavery, kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit rape, not the trafficking. Why use "human traffickers" as a euphemism for "slavers" when that means things we don't intend to mean (especially when some people do mean to include people getting paid to smuggle people across a border by said people)?
Why are we defaulting to a right-wing authoritarian framing and working back from there to the nearest step that we're not presented with a clear reason not to? Have you considered that you might actually be the one being naive about the effects of your stance?
For reference, Philosophy Tube's video on Sex Work (not all the details dirrectly relevant but some very much are as is the overall perspective) https://youtu.be/1DZfUzxZ2VU
And Kurzgesagt's War on Drugs video https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1