Youtube comments of DynamicWorlds (@dynamicworlds1).
-
1800
-
1600
-
787
-
777
-
684
-
512
-
275
-
256
-
252
-
246
-
228
-
226
-
226
-
218
-
212
-
207
-
205
-
199
-
163
-
155
-
151
-
151
-
147
-
145
-
144
-
143
-
139
-
132
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
124
-
124
-
122
-
pinochet pilot #666 no he's not, definitions of masculine and feminine shift throughout history and norms have even changed in the short life of our country.
Boys used to wear dresses when they were young and pink and blue used to be for boys and girls respectively, rather than the other way around like they are today.
Going outside our own country, the ancient Greeks used to view women, not men, as the more lustful ones, dresses (or at least dress-like garments) have been worn across genders, and many cultures have had more than 2 gender roles.
To top it off, psychotherapy doesn't find trying to enforce strict gender roles on people based on their sex to produce good mental health outcomes, and neurology has been able to pick up differences in tras people in brain scans.
Sorry, but he's full of shit and is talking like an actual Nazi.
122
-
120
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
110
-
106
-
100
-
98
-
94
-
94
-
”Never believe that [they] 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. [They] 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 true of all fascists (edited to try and keep YouTube from suspiciously censoring it)
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time."
92
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
86
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
66
-
66
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
I don't. Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal one, regardless of what the BS laws say. The whole antagonism between them started when the cop took out his anger about clinic wait times out on House (who wasn't in control of it), and when he didn't like how House responded to it, decided to trip a cripple by kicking out his cane.
House's addiction does cause problems, sure, but it's the hospital's call as to whether he's fit enough to practice, and frankly, no-one without a medical degree has any buisness telling a chronic pain patient that they shouldn't be taking meds.
The cop needs to stick to crimes that actually have a victim, rather than abusing an unjust law to go after someone for a personal grudge (which actually, should have excluded him from working on any case involving House in the first place).
House is a criminal (technically), an ass, and an addict that needs help, but Tritter is the menace to society.
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
I mean, I think they're used to seeing animals a lot bigger than them. I'd imagine the mood is more "what the fuck is all this? I don't understand anything I'm looking at. Am I tripping? Where's the water? Where's the sand? Why is this thing moving? It it actually the current and I'm just so far gone I can't recognize water?"
Seriously, they're just really big bugs who've ever known oceans and beach, then were caugh, put on one thing they didn't understand (a boat), in another thing they didn't understand made of an unknown material (a luggage bag), were tossed around a bit in total darkness before they went to altitude (which I have no idea how it might affect them), then were tossed around a bit more, then ended up in an airport luggage claim are that is just a completely alien environment in every conceivable way.
Some fear? Probably, but the overriding emotion I think would be total confusion (with fear and "yay, I'n free" coming in tied for second)
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
The right vs left divide traces its roots back to royalists vs those that opposed them. Taken out of that specific context, it's best understood as drawing a distinction between entrenched power and populism. Any time you fall on the populist side of that divide, you're supporting a left-wing position. For example, libertarians are by in large left wing on social issues while right wing on economic issues (mostly due to what IMO is a misunderstanding of economics, though I'm sure they'd say the same about me).
Sure, it's neither a binary, nor does is encompass all range of political thought (as politicians like to twist it to mean, among other things), but as this is about entrenched power vs populism, the use is valid.
Ideally, it wouldn't be partisan because we'd have multiple left-wing political parties debating issues on other axes because serving the people was just assumed, but the reality is we do have strong opposition to both the will and interests of the general population in both major US political parties and until we get an election system that weeds both the corrupt and power-hungry out and we get voters who largely stop voting against their interests the right vs left spectrum will continue to be relevant in discussion.
The best we can hope for is to try and re-establish the real definitions of political terms that politicians have twisted into meaningless buzzwords to throw around and be very judicious about how we use them.
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
Complex language requires being able to encode information into a sensory medium with a high "bandwidth" and keeping that information in a specific order.
Due to the way smells work, this makes a poor medium for this. Despite what hive insects like bees are able to achieve with it, they're limited to a specific set of information they can communicate. They do, however, make decent mediums for information sets that change on evolutionary timescales, such as emotions.
Visual might seem like a good way to go, but it tends to be expensive (bio-luminescence or lots of movement) and often ties up important body parts when it's even capable of being fast enough. It will most likely be a 2ndary channel for information, much like how we use body language, but it's limitations get in the way of evolving as a primary medium for complex language. (though, unlike smell, it is possible, as we can see with sign language)
Really, auditory, especially vocal, is the way to go, and convergent evolution will drive species towards it. That said, auditory ranges being incompatible could be a trial to overcome, though not insurmountable with some very basic technology.
The big questions are:
How does one attempt to teach one's own language to an alien? (they'll likely be trying to do the same with us anyway)
How does one comprehend an alien mind?
Think about taking a magic universal translator and sticking a hunter from the stone age, smith from 700AD England, noble from 1700AD France, farmer from 2000AD Congo, tax collector from 1300AD China, warrior from 1000BC Greece, fisher from 900AD Mexico slave from 100BC Rome, priest from 2000BC Egypt, monk from 1500AD Japan, and yourself in a room and try to have everyone just get along. Now realize that this is just the tutorial level because you're all the same species (using the same brains), from the same planet, all from within a few thousand years of each other, and most of you have some knowledge of at least 1 or 2 of the others.
Now remove those advantages, have several billion voices clamoring behind them, arm everyone, and try to negotiate and cooperate without killing each other.
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
There's a word for a "post-truth society".
That word is "fascism".
"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"
Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Maniacman2030 except that models of gender that aren't just male=man/female=woman can be found in plenty of societies of varrying levels of development from modern to hunter-gatherer, even in societies that do have a gender binary the roles differ significantly across time and region, intersexed people exist, we have brain scans that can show differences between cis- and transgendered individuals, behavioral and mental aptitude differences between sexes do not show clear distinctions (instead show mere tendencies), and (much like homosexuality) attempts to change how a person feels to how they look only result in negative mental health outcomes.
So that means the fields anthropology, history, neurology, behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, and psychotherapy all oppose rigid gender binaries.
6 fields of study agreeing is pretty solid support, and we have prescient for the same argument we're having today over trans-acceptance back with gay acceptance (which was also labeled as a mental disorder with some pretty horrific history of "correction treatments")
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
Maureen Lycaon it's not even that all complex societies are multicultural/multiethnic, but that multiculturalism makes nations stronger.
From multiple examples in Egypt (including even adopting the technologies of their conquerers), to the multiple ancient empires (being multicultural by definition as being empires) that allowed conquered lands to maintain much of their culture and autonomy, to China being a combination of multiple (often separate) lands, to Rome's adoption of basically any good idea they ran into (and even every god they couldn't find a rough enough equivalent of to say "oh, we just call the god of _ the name ___"), to the golden age of Islam's welcoming of other faiths and even "doubters" into their courts and intellectual circles (which saw their science boom immediately stoped when they became more religious purists), to Mongolia's often forceful conscription of the intellectuals of other cultures allowing them to create and administer one of the largest empires the world has ever known almost overnight dispite starting with essentially 0% literacy, to the enlightenment's rediscovering of Greek culture and philosophy, to Russia's program of paying a great deal for Western industrial experts to move to their country (rappidly catapulting them from irrelevant backwater to major world power), to the USA which not only is often referred to as a melting pot but our very from of government is based on ancient greek philosophy, Roman bureaucracy, English common law, and Native American peace treaties (and was the beta version and template for basically all modern government).
The majority of the problems people blame on multiculturalism are actually from ethno-cultural purists tearing appart their own societies in a hissy fit over being asked to share it. The remainder are more than made up for by the benefits of one of the most surefire ways to create national success in human history.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Yup, in the universe of the fate series, Aturia (female Arthur pretending to be a man to fill the role of king, with only her closest friends and advisors knowing the truth) and marries Guinevere, a close friend, so Camelot has a queen.
She learns of the love between Lancelot and Guinevere, and allows it to continue as long as it's secret as she sees the real love between them, but things go bottoms up when the affair that Arturia was pretending not to be aware of goes public.
Tragic for all involved.
Also, supposedly there's magic stuff at play that makes Mordred, and a LOT of other stuff, because the "original" legends (in their altered forms) are just background for the fate stories.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
As terrible as the internment camps were, what we are doing now is So much worse.
Taking meds from people, seperating families, forcing people into life-threatening living conditions, and generally being deliberately punitive.
For as much as the internment camps were concentration camps and a violation of the rights of the Japanese, more people came out of the camps than went in, and we talk about their harm in terms of the financial, psychological, and social damage done, not in terms of deaths.
Once we're talking about deaths and seperated families, to use a term other than "concentration camps" is to downplay the severity for the sake of actual politically correct language.
This is the real face of the #resistance(tm)
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Compare to Trump:
"Now, tomorrow is a special day for me. I’m going to receive my gold watch. And since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”
Yes, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors. It is that lady who gives us our great and special place in the world. For it’s the great life force of each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed into the next century and beyond. Other countries may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close.
This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost."
You know who said that?
RONALD REAGAN!
Today's Republicans are NOT conservatives.
They're fascists.
There is a difference and it does matter.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Obnoxious nodding while talking to try and get people to agree with her
1:30 "leader who shall remain nameless" Putin's not nice, but he's not Voldemort, chill.
2:20 "we do speak out about rigged elections" ...seriously? Stfu!
Also, Putin hates you because you want to escalate toward WW3, not because you're fueling descent in his country (which you're not, and even if you were, you're bragging for the same thing you're accusing him of)
3:00 You take full responsibility? Really? No-one fucking believes that!
3:50 wikileaks is an independent organization, not a Russian one
4:50 Russia stole the e-mails? BS, they were leaked from inside your campaign by someone sick of your corruption.
5:00 "You just can't make this stuff up" you just did
Insufferable liar!
Someone, please, find a rock big enough to hide her under and keep her there. I can't take it anymore!
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I'm more in agreement with Kyle's position, but devil's advocate a minute; they're not banning a substance. They're banning the sale of one delivery method among many (including one which could be disassembled and turned into the banned one at home for personal use)
I agree with the general concern of black markets, but how much of a danger is that, really, when it's not tobacco, but just cigarettes being banned?
Non-rhetorical question, btw, I legit don't know how many would turn to a black market instead of switching to vapes, chew, or cigars.
I admit I'm uneasy about unintended consequences of this law as well (and don't find it the most effective way to combat the problem), but how much of a risk is there?
I can think of issues, but is there any parallel we can use to try and judge the likelihood of those problems?
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I highly recommend Innuendo Studios' "alt right playbook"
In particular, "always a bigger fish", "the origins of conservatism", and "I hate Mondays"
The very notion of "solving problems" in the sense a progressive would think about it isn't actually a part of the ideology. Problems exist as something to sit around and passively just keep agreeing it's bad (without taking any systemic steps to reduce in the future) or as either evidence that people aren't "in the right place in the hierarchy" or just something to sort those deserving of power and privilage from those underserving.
It's often not even that they believe that solvable problems need to persist. It's that (especially beyond "just put the right people in power and it'll sort itself out") they don't even believe "solvable problems" are a thing, and look at attempts to solve (or at least mitigate) them as either dangerous naivete or a cynical plot to put the "wrong" people in power.
And yeah, there is almost zero room for compromise there. Unless you can make them feel like following their thought leaders will make them weak (the avoidance of feeling weak being the underlying motivation for everything), you can't get through to them because not only do they not believe in your goals, they probably don't think you do either.
Why do they resist masking (for one of countless examples)? Because who's telling who what to do and blaming China are more important to them than any reduction in the death toll. Notice also the black and white thinking: either something is 100% effective, or it's worthless. They don't believe that, say, a 50% reduction in death toll would matter to anyone because they don't. To them, either a single solution will completely eliminate the problem, or it's worthless. And if it's worthless, they assume you're either a "sheep" or (by projecting their own motivations onto you) trying to control them just for the sake of wielding power.
They are occasionally (accidentally) right on some things, though. Like psychology, as a field, being far too PC. Right-Wing Authoritarianism is a mental disorder and needs to be categorized as such.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
WarblesOnALot actually, that's (sadly) only the cover story. The reality is that old news media (who was feeling the heat of competition from YouTube news channels who weren't bought off) scoured the site to find one hateful video that had an ad on it which slipped through YouTube's previously existing filter system and jumped on it to try and get YouTube to crack down on content.
A selection of large companies (such as Walmart and several predatory banks) joined in step immediately to boycott YouTube. Their motivation is that they were used to their advertising dollars buying bias, and the rise of people turning outside of TV news with said bias was leading to a wave of public opinion that threatens their goals.
To give a couple specifics, Walmart really likes their suppliers to outsource their products, so they were hugely in favor of the planned TPP trade deal. While Trump may have latched onto it in his campaign, the original push-back against it came from the internet latching onto something that was supposed to happen quietly and spreading around how terrible it was. The banks, on the other hand, have had a nice long streak from Bill Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, to Hillary/Trump of presidents that would happily play ball and let them continue to screw over people more. Then Bernie (who's campaign was largely driven by the grass roots on the internet) came along and threatened that con-game and they were NOT happy about that.
Of course, the mainstream media instantly piled on this, because of their ever shrinking credibly and viewer base. Meanwhile, youtube works with them to roll out TV news channels, and eventually "youtube tv" shortly thereafter (at a time-period which suggests they started this plan immediately after the first corporations started the boycott). To top things off, the same "news" corporations are really just huge media conglomerates who make money on non-news content, and so are perfectly happy to see other good content get hit, even if it's not political.
To give an example relevant to this channel (beyond just time spent watching youtube competes with time watching TV), General Electric may have gotten into the game because of MSNBC (which they own) but, among other companies they hold, they also own The "History" channel, which is directly threatened by channels like this that make actually historically accurate content that people want to watch (& for far lower production costs than their BS shows).
I could give more specifics if you want, but this is wall of text already long enough.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
They should have BUT....
"The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. . .However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm
the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time
too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are
constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."
"For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism
is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare."
"militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. . .the Leader,
knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force,
also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need
and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model),
every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors."
"the Ur-Fascist hero craves
heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to
die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
-topical excerpts from Umberto Eco's 14 characteristics of Ur-Fascism
They were cowards terrified of acknowledging their own relative weakness and drunk on their own propaganda that the US didn't have the stomach for a drawn out fight, so they refused to acknowledge the reality of their situation for a very long time until even many of them could no longer deny it.
To Yamamoto's credit, for all his misplaced loyalties, he did not let his mind be consumed by the death cult that had so consumed his government and maintained the ability to make rational assessments of his situation....which of course we're ignored.
And why wouldn't they ignore him? It's not like fascist governments actually care about their people, so sending them into a meat grinder is just part of their day job to them. It's easy to bet on longshots when you're betting the time, money, and lives of others instead of your own (at least if you have no conscience).
So yeah, just like the US Civil War, they picked a fight they couldn't win and preferred stacking up the bodies of others over admitting they were wrong for as long as they could, which is not at all uncommon for authoritarians of any stripe.
The longer they put off surrender, the longer they stayed in power.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
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
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
EgadsNo I don't vote for war criminals, those who rig elections, or those who have contempt for the constitution or demographics I am a part of. None of those are high bars pass, but Hillary failed all of them (and Trump either failed or promised to fail most if not all). That left me with Jill vs Johnson after eliminating unqualified candidates, and since I don't have faith in the "invisible hand", I voted Jill with hopes to get the Green party up to a large enough percentage to start qualifying for things.
If they want to end, or at least reduce, the spoiler effect, they can institute something like ranked choice voting. Until then, the can fuck right off with complaints about 3rd parties, because until they do that, you know they're not serious and are just using it as a talking point to silence dissent.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
My preference is for what I'll call "conditional tariffs". Those would be tariffs imposed based on how the goods were produced.
These are there to level the playing field between companies that follow our standards for worker protections, environmental standards, etc. but if a company can show they meet certain standards, they get exemptions/reductions.
This would not only allow us to take unilateral actions to make improvements in such areas without harming our own economy, but would also encourage companies and nations abroad to raise their own standards to try and match ours because having lower standards costs them.
If other nations followed suit, which would be to their advantage as well, this could end the race to the bottom problem with globalization while keeping the (non-explotative) benefits.
Bonus points: because it's a tax applied to all goods with only their production, not national origin taken into account, it's much less likely to start a trade war (and we could even encourage countries to institute the same types of laws, as if they do have higher standards in one area, it would give us more freedom and motivation to improve there).
That's the kind of virtuous cycle that could be used to even get the world powers united on dealing with climate change, because it removes the prisoners dilemma.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Compare to Trump:
"Now, tomorrow is a special day for me. I’m going to receive my gold watch. And since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”
Yes, the torch of Lady Liberty symbolizes our freedom and represents our heritage, the compact with our parents, our grandparents, and our ancestors. It is that lady who gives us our great and special place in the world. For it’s the great life force of each generation of new Americans that guarantees that America’s triumph shall continue unsurpassed into the next century and beyond. Other countries may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on Earth comes close.
This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost."
You know who said that?
RONALD REAGAN!
Today's Republicans are NOT conservatives.
They're fascists.
There is a difference and it does matter.
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
-
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
-
There appears to me (and I could be way off here, so feel free to say so if you think so) to be a political divide between the older and younger Gen-Xers created by, if I may speak metaphorically and speak in generalities, the older ones catching a ride on the ladder to success the boomers pulled up behind them and being more able to culturally fit in with and pass as younger boomers.
Meanwhile, the younger Gen-Xers, while not as hard hit as millenials, tended to be hit by boomers attacks on things like education, unions, etc and subject to the condescending ageism pervasive through the boomer generation, and so, while not that culturally seperated from older Gen-Xers, tended to be significantly seperated from boomers.
8
-
@davigurgel2040 "liquifying" could be via a cheap solvent or just by mixing it with some other oily waste and sending it through a grinder that only would need to be coursely ground/shreaded. The advantage is that rather than digging a wide, deep hole that you'll need to cover again in a way that won't let it come back up, you can just pump it right down existing oil and gas wells. Industrial shreaders are cheaper than mining equipment, so it is cheaper because you're able to take advantage of existing deep holes and geologic reservoirs capable of containing it.
That's not to say dumping solid plastics into, for example, mines is a bad move, but we're talking about trying to dispose of a lot of material and pumps and pipes are a really efficient way to move large quantities of matter.
Yes, burning plants also releases CO2, but the main challenge with carbon sequestration is getting the carbon into a form dense enough to be viable for sequestration (and ideally in a ways that doesn't release methane as decomposing biomass does while also being hard to seperate out all the water from the hydrocarbons). Plastics are simultaneously a waste product and one of the densest and purest forms of hydrocarbons we have, so disolved by waste solvent and/or ground into a slurry with waste oils is already the ideal carbon sequestration form, so needs minimal effort for processing/containment.
When the goal is "shove as much carbon back under the Earth's surface" starting with the stuff that is both extremely carbon-dence and already waste is the most logical choice.
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
-
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
-
Honestly, I don't give a fuck who Bill Maher supports. He's not half as smart as he thinks he is. He's an abrasive ass who's fed talking points by MSNBC that they feel will be cathartic to liberals watching them. It was nice to see during the Bush years and lead to him usually being right, don't get me wrong, but he's never really been a serious political figure.
Jimmy Dore is what Bill Maher pretends to be (minus the egomania), and even within more mainstream TV, Stephen Colbert and Louis Black beat him out easily on both comedy and truth-telling. Hell, Louis Black even beats him out on angry outrage.
I can't think of anything in Maher's performances that I can't get better, and more genuinely, elsewhere, especially online, but even on TV.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@TheGroovyJones no, that was the focus of the bill. The key thing you're missing is that the high-level executives are effectively a class of their own, and they're the ones who decide if, how much, and to which politician the company "donates" so their interests are protected as well.
On paper, the CEO is just the employee of the shareholders but in practice generally it's more like the power sharing relationship between the clergy and nobility in medieval Europe kept in balance dispite competing interests through moving in the same circles, an unwritten code of conduct, solidarity in contempt for the rest of us, and the implications of what the other's elimination would mean for their position. Some differences, of course, but the highest level executive positions don't function in the same employer/employee dynamic the rest of us live in, dispite how much they want to offload responsibility for their actions when convenient.
It's....complicated.
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
-
"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 GOP official party platform 2012
"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"
Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
The top marginal tax rate should be open ended so that the percentage increases the higher over it you are, approaching 100% as your income approaches infinite.
Ex: (using a $5million top bracket starting at 70%)
[Top marginal rate]=70%+30%((Income-$5)/(Income))
Using that formula the top marginal tax would be
$6million: 75% ($250,000 from top bracket remaining)
$10million: 85% ($750,000 from top bracket remaining)
$15million: 90% ($1,000,000 from top bracket remaining)
$100million: 98.5% ($1,425,000 from top bracket remaining)
$1billion: 99.85% ($1,492,500 from top bracket remaining)
Etc
(Picked those numbers semi-randomly just to demonstrate the idea of how the tax percentage always goes up, but never reaches 100%. I'm not saying they're good or bad numbers, so replace with your own as you see fit.)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Left vs Right, originating from republicans (as in literally supporters of republics) vs royalists has come to refer more broadly to collective, democratic power VS hierarchical, establishment power.
If someone's not a real populist, they're not a leftist by definition, nor are you if you support mega-corps in an effective oligarchy.
Even if you use the twisted economic version of boiling the whole thing down to communism vs capitalism (which you REALLY shouldn't) the establishment Dems and the corporate media are still way far right.
While we're on the subject of definitions "liberal" means "open to new ideas and ways of doing things &/or pro freedom" so the Hillary camp isn't that either.
(I know this all seems pedantic, but if we allow politicians to constantly redefine political terms, they become meaningless and all discussion devolves into screaming empty buzzwords at each other, while they get to do whatever they want)
Corporatist, oligarch, neo-liberal, neo-conservative, right wing, or hell, regressive (which as a parallel of "progressive" has come to mean someone who pretends to be about progress while taking us backwards), all are much better descriptors of those like Hillary.
What YouTube is actually doing, at the behest of advertisers (who are used to their dollars buying control of the public narrative) and old media (who want to continue to exist despite people not liking to watch their content anymore), is trying to crack down on all alternative media (regardless of political slant) to make way for the giant media conglomerates to step in and make YouTube the new cable TV. (I can dig up specific companies and related agendas for examples if needed)
It's all about power and money, as usual, and to be honest, I'm surprised they didn't hit this channel sooner.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The racist vote always goes red. If Trump was about racism, we would have expected to see a bump in the proportion of the total population that voted GOP. Instead, we had completely normal (even slightly low) turnout, meaning Trump turned more people off by the overt bigotry than he dragged off their couches by not being subtle about it.
The anomaly we do see, however, is that between election and taking office (a time when a president's approval numbers normally go Up) his approval numbers dropped sharply. What was the only significant thing to happen in that time? He picked his cabinet, proving to everyone paying attention with 2 brain cells that he wasn't going to "drain the swamp".
Basically, non-racists voted for Trump because they knew that Hillary was 100% corrupt and going to work against them, so they took a gamble on the wild card.
You want to know why we have president Trump? Stop looking at Trump. Look at the 2nd most disliked candidate in US history who rigged the dem primary, overtly scorned those she stole it from, colluded with the media to push Trump through the GOP primary, and ran such an incompetent campaign that (among many other failings) hit Trump with attacks so incompetently that it helped a compulsive liar seem like a straight-shooter.
Hell, even just looking at the polling leading up to the election (where they leaned towards Trump when Hillary was speaking publicly and away from Trump when she was out of the public eye) shows that the election was just a reaction to her and what she represented, not a favoring of Trump (the most disliked presidental candidate in US history).
The only part of the 2016 election results that can't be traced back to the establishment "democrats" is interstate crosscheck, and even that voter disenfranchisement program is something they ignored for years and pulled something similar in their own primary, so they had no room to suddenly complain about.
Sure, racism is a problem and Trump emboldened them to be more overt and violent, that's all true, but if you want to understand the 2016 election, you need to look no further than the cover of Hillary's book:
What Happened?
Hillary Clinton
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
IMO, the less Galahad we get the better unless someone does a good job wiping the Sue-ness off him. Gwain, Tristain, and some of the other knights of the round table would be nice to see more of though.
There's some nice story that can be done with Arthur, Gwain, Merlin, and Morgan if both the latter stick to their pegan versions over the change from the old pegan ways. Arthur in some versions of the tales embodies the change from older pegan ways to a new religion and society, and the ways and reasons each react to that could be explored a fair bit.
You can make a lot of stories around little 3-4 character sets around a theme, but then all the stories center around Arthur as he ties all the stories together. Then, you can have a narrative over all of them of how both how powerful a group built around a great leader can be, but also how fundamentally fragile such a structure can be when it all comes crashing down.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"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"
Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
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
-
Abbreviated excerpts from Umberto Eco's Ur-fascism:
2. The rejection of modernism. “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. 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.”
4. Disagreement is treason.
8. "By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” "Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."
10. "every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors."
11. "In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
Why are they so stunningly stupid and incompetent? Because fascists aren't actually ruthlessly efficient and get the trains running on time or even good at the violence they're so eager for. They're just idiotic loosers drunk on machismo and hatred.
Feel free to apply this to all their fuckups earlier in the war and yet to come. It won't stop being true. "Passable competency" is the most they can aspire to on their very best days.
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
-
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
-
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
-
That's not their state ideology, though. Not even close. They're a fascist totalitarian dictatorship.
"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. . .
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy. . .
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.
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.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples” — “maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism."
-topical excepts from Umbero Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-Fascism
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
. . .
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence."
-Frank Wilhoit
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
-
+Peter Ernst Actually, even if you ignore the unconstitutional actions, election fraud, and selling out of national interests to multinational corporations for legalized bribes, there's still bits that fit the legal definition of treason.
For example, arming Saudi Arabia knowing full well that they're arming Al-Qaeda does actually fit even the very narrow legal definition. (and conducting war in a way that only increases support for terrorist groups does in spirit if not letter)
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Peter Kapeel "You're angry at them because by committing suicide they show that you are worth less than the suffering that they are enduring."
You're projecting your viewpoint onto me.
What you described is how you view and frame suicide, as shown by your previous posts.
I haven't said anything even implying anger at those that have killed themselves.
The only people you could imply my being "angry" at would be those that hurt her, those that let it happen, and those that perpetuate the mindset that contributed to it being overlooked for so long.
That said, for the record, yes, I do believe that someone's suffering can be bad enough that it can outweigh the pain their death will cause. (even without taking into account the pain other feel from seeing the pain and not being able to eliminate it)
There's no anger in that, only sympathy and compassion.
There is anger, however in a mindset that sees the suicide as a personal and general affront.
"In my last post I said I try to empathize with the living that suffer. So, i don't know what you're trying to get at."
Then read it again, please.
Half of my post is addressing how not empathizing with the dead, specifically, is problematic.
If something's unclear, I'm willing to clarify if you can be specific, but to my eyes it looks clear enough to suggest the problem is more that you don't want to understand what I'm saying. (which I can sympathize with; it's not a comfortable truth of reality to wrap your mind around and let into your heart, but it is the reality of this world we live in)
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
David Renton protests are an appeal to sympathy. When you protested and were brutalized, your parents stood with you and forced the politicians to take you seriously.
We protested (remember Occupy?), were brutalized, and your generation sat back and joined in the media sneering at us. We voted for Bernie in 2016 (unlike your generation, on average) and when we were targeted for systematic voter suppression your generation dismissed us when we came forward with evidence of it, voted for Hillary, played up the Russiagate hysteria (which was an obvious distraction from the rigging) and moat of you voted for Trump.
We've been doing our part, we just realized that our protests weren't going to move the generation complicit in selling out our futures to do theirs, so switched tactics.
Thank you for proving my point about the agism, though, now kindly fuck off for betraying the causes you fought for in your youth and becoming what you fought against. I'm glad not every former boomer leftie bacame as big of a POS as you, but you are certanly a disgrace like most of them.
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
-
@CutThroatJuggalo both want the cultural battle to go on indefinitely, though. The GOP will stir up irrational hatred to get bigots to vote against their own interests, and the "Democrats" then get to play "good cop" and say "I know you don't really like the platform we're giving you, but can you risk not taking the deal?"
They can also, like $hillary and many others have done, play things such that the public has to spend their political capital in the form of time and energy to get them to "evolve" on an issue. In the meantime, they're made a mess of the economy, violated constitutional limits on power, and "ops" lost ground on another social issue.
We won some ground with the last administration on gay and trans rights, but Obama broke deportation records, normalized Bush's constitutional violations, set up the next market crash, put the healthcare discussion back to "is Romneycare too left-wing", and "couldn't do anything" as the GOP set themselves up to stack the courts to (among other things) put Roe vs Wade back under threat so that they could use that as a threat on the voters to vote for an even further right-wing "Democrat" than Obama, shifting the Overton Window further right no matter which way the election went.
They even quietly expanded executive power after Trump won to ensure he would be able to do even more damage when he got in so their next candidate would look better by comparison.
As long as the current illusion of a 2-party system remains, all gains are temporary, because neither the GOP nor "Democrats" want anything solved permanently.
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
-
Strictly speaking, they don't have to understand the nutrition for it to be why those foods are combined. All else being equal, if 2 cultures are competing, the one with the food culture that combines foods in a more healthy way is going to have an advantage and (though one of many means) be more likely to survive and have its food culture spread.
Understanding is not required for the selection process to take place anymore than it is with genetic evolution.
They are healthy to eat in combination can flow right into a causal relation to the frequency in which they are combined.
Even down to a smaller level, a family with healthier family recipes is more likely to produce more children who are able to grow into healthy adults who are able to have healthy kids of their own. Likewise, if a family is doing well, others are more likely to emulate things they are doing, even without any understanding of if or why those things would confer an advantage. "What are you feeding them?" is, afterall, something said to a parent who's children are growing up bigger and stronger than average.
Whether you want to call it memetics or dual inheritance theory or something else, the fundamentals of evolution (selection+reproduction with random variation) apply to ideas and culture, not just biology.
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
As Timur mentioned, we know because we can see it in their bones from evidence of disease to stunted growth. Fact is that, for all the flaws of the modern diet, most of us eat far, far better than people in medieval times. This whole thing where we have generations that don't understand what it means for there to not be enough food to go around and it to be totally out of anyone's control dispite their best efforts is remarkably new.
On a good year, sure, great food, but between frequent bad years and a lack of understanding of nutrition, consistently maintaining that good diet long enough to reach the full potential of your adult peak would be difficult.
Is it overblown in a lot of depictions? Absolutely, but yes, they were generally sub-optimally fed.
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
-
The top marginal tax rate should be open ended so that the percentage increases the higher over it you are, approaching 100% as your income approaches infinite.
Ex: (using a $5million top bracket starting at 70%)
[Top marginal rate]=70%+30%((Income-$5)/(Income))
Using that formula the top marginal tax would be
$6million: 75% ($250,000 from top bracket remaining)
$10million: 85% ($750,000 from top bracket remaining)
$15million: 90% ($1,000,000 from top bracket remaining)
$100million: 98.5% ($1,425,000 from top bracket remaining)
$1billion: 99.85% ($1,492,500 from top bracket remaining)
Etc
(Picked those numbers semi-randomly just to demonstrate the idea of how the tax percentage always goes up, but never reaches 100%. I'm not saying they're good or bad numbers, so replace with your own as you see fit.)
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
-
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
-
@JackOKnives the right has been claiming that the the left pushing for sexual liberation would lead to rape, pedophilia, and bestiality forever including back to when the hotbutton issue was race mixing. Instead, we find that focusing on education and consent (the core of sexual liberation) lowers all those things, while the right wing approach of lying, hiding information, and insisting on an arbitrary set of rules (who's moral foundation is just "because we said so") increases all those things while causing other harm as well.
Likewise, they've used the same scaremongering tactics one every single civil rights issue, claiming that breaking down a current unjust heirarchy would cause chaos and all sorts of other things, yet it never happens.
There's only one conclusion left: as always it's projection and borrowing tactics from abusers, claiming that their victims must accept the abuse because the alternative would be worse; that they have no choice and must do the horrible things they do.
The far-right playbook is incredibly short and the only major update in centuries has been fascism.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Tychoxi fiat currency isn't based on trust. That way of thinking traces back to some disproven assumptions about how money originated made by Adam Smith.
Money as we know it wasn't made as a way to grease the wheels of barter economies (which, btw, never existed), but as a way to pay public servants (originally soldiers , but expanded to other people since).
Whether in tokens made out of rare metals (ex: gold coins) or slips of paper, currency is essentially a bunch of IOUs representing the society's debt to those working in the public sector who make their way of life possible, and taxes are both the acknowledgement that said debt has been paid (dirrectly or indirectly) and creates the near universal demand for the currency which gives it its value.
No trust involved, or precious metals needed (as we later figured out once we had decent anti-counterfeiting measures).
Unless adopted as a national currency, cryptocurrencies have no stable demand to create underlying value and make them a real currency, and no nation in their right mind would adopt them because of their numerous inherent problems (not the least of which is that once you "mine" all of them, you'll hit deflation every time your economy/population grows because you can't expand the currency supply)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Anonymous Bastard yeah, he made a guy he shot in a "hunting accident" apologise publicly. That's a real thing that happened, and doesn't even make the top 10 most evil things he's done. He's an absolute monster who orchistrated most of the wrongdoing of the Bush administration dirrectly, or more often through his patsy, Bush Jr.
Back in the early 2000s, when people talked about impeaching Bush for warcrimes and frequent violations of the Constitution, the response would inevitably be "yeah, but then we'd get Darth Cheney, and nothing would change because Bush is just his puppet"
The Iraq war contracted out "civilian" services largely in a no-bid contract to Cheney's old company Haliburtan, don't forget, and he pushed for it heavily.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Lovecraft was a coward, plain and simple. We're talking about a man who's view of a beautiful night sky would be best summed up not as wonder or awe, but horror, and who looks at learning as something dangerous rather than empowering. This permeated every aspect of his live including fear of humans who are slightly different from him. For example, when racism against blacks appears in his work, it's less like "blacks are worthless" and more "blacks are big, strong, and dangerous compared to my frail Caucasian self". Hell, anything that was out of the norm for him was treated as a potential threat.
Was he racist, absolutely and I totally understand all those who can't read his work because of it, but I find myself pitying him, as it's just another facit of what appears to have been some form of untreated anxiety disorder beyond his ability to cope which socially crippled him, dispite how channeling those terrors into his writing made for some classic horror.
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
-
2. The rejection of modernism. “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. 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.”
See also: obsession with a plot, cult of heroism and death, viewing life as lived for struggle, contempt for the weak, and preoccupation with feelings of frustration and humiliation.
We're not looking at stupidity, per se, but simply fascist rhetoric.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@indymarrow8050 "give all the money to the government" wtf does that even mean? Money exists because the government spends it into existence to pay public servants, has universal value because it's what the government accepts as payment for fees and taxes, and exists in between those steps as a representation of debts paid (dirrectly or indirrectly) to those who work in fields outside of normal markets to make a society function. Since the very invention of coinageb "giving all the money to the government" is a concept that makes no sense if you understand what money is.
As to wages, do I want government to have total control over them? No, that level of micromanaging doesn't really work. Do I want the government to do some things about income inequality? Yes, because as I've stated and you haven't refuted, people need to organize in some way outside of markets to put a check on the inevitable trends of markets. People organizing to collectively decide on rules for a society to be run by isn't tyranny; it's democracy (representative or otherwise).
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,” -FDR
As banks were able to force our government to bail them (instead of the people our government is supposedly by, for, and of) out of a crash they created themselves, by FDR's (and Mussolini's) definition(s) we're already bordering on fascism, and it isn't because of people wanting to limit economic inequality.
Sorry to tell you, but you've been fed a line of BS because it was to certain people's advantage to have you spouting off unintelligible nonsense and ignoring sound reasoning against what you've been taught to believe like it was a religion.
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
-
N V it's more complicated than that. There was a time in history, for example, when the Islamic world was more open and tolerant than the contemporary Christian one. Even today, in the US, Muslims are more tolerant of gays than Christians. It's not about one being better or worse than the other (the worst part of both is the Old Testiment, which all the Abrihamic religions share).
It's about context, and the most relevant part of that context is that the rise of humanism, the enlightenment, and secular values in the west has largely declawed Christianity.
Remove the religion from that context and it will go right back to being as brutal as fundamentalist Islam, just like it was a few hundred years ago.
Take a look at the times that modern society has slipped up keeping Christianity's darker impulses in control, and you get the KKK and Nazis. Look to Africa which has both religions and no western secular humanism to keep either in check and you'll find them acting quite similarly.
You can't improve a society by trading one poison for another. You have to introduce the antidote.
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
-
To answer the question, it comes from the fact that a lot of the early voting states where Bernie did poorly, due to not having any name recognition by that time, had large black populations.
There's also the fact that at the beginning of the primary, Hillary was coasting on some manufactured illustration that the Clintons were good to black people and some twisting of some things Bernie said.
Given time, however, Bernie showed he was willing to respectfully listen (even when he could have been excused if he didn't), his history of marching with MLK became public knowledge, people came to understand what he was saying better, and Hillary's "superpreditors" quote came to light and she showed complete disdain for those that challenged her on it (in complete contrast to how Bernie handled black people that challenged him on racial issues).
After that, one after another, black community leaders came out in support of Bernie, but many of the votes had already been cast, and the great spin machine took that and went to work.
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
-
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
-
@sethobannion3149 I'll agree with that. The humiliation of seeing all their crimes laid out before the world while they sit in a jumpsuit, only to be sent back to bars after their lawyer fails to provide an adequate defense, only to have to do it again the next day for another crime as one thing after another is proved and their guilt becomes insurmountable and their inevitable conviction undeniable. Basically, being completely dressed down like a child for what they've done in front of the entire world, made to stand in the corner, and come back and do it again the next day.
It's also part of why I like the idea of the victims getting to pull the lever. There's a bit of return of agency to the victim, yes, but it also means at the end, it's someone that to them, was far below even being considered as human who stands with the power over them at the very end.
Normally, victim as executioner causes serious problems, but I'd be ok with it in this kind of situation.
And yeah. No funeral. No burial. No gravestone. When we're done with the body, it gets disposed of in an undisclosed location without honors like dumping the contents of the tank under a ship's toilet into the sea.
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
-
Yup, sorry, I'm quite familiar with anxiety and depression (1st hand and in people close to me). If you can't handle a test, you're not able to be a nurse. Maybe you can get better with treatment and try again, but no, right now we can't put someone's life in your hands.
Contrary to the sweet lies they tell us when we're younger, you can't always do something just by trying hard enough. Sometimes it's because of things unrelated to you. Sometimes it's your limits or mistakes. Sometimes lots of other people can and you can't (welcome to mental issues, glad you could join us). It always sucks, but sometimes you have to set your dreams aside, give up on them, and move on.
Welcome to the real world, it's often an unfair and unforgiving bitch. (and please people, stop trying to hide that from kids until you drop then into the real world as adults and say "you're on your own now"; you're not doing anyone any favors)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Havoc Blitzkrieg No, that's a perfectly sound strategy. The infantry tanks were designed to stick with the infantry and protect them from heavy armor. They were also the ones supposed to clear the heavy tanks of the enemy from an area and start the punch-through of an enemy line, assisted by the infantry (who would provide the extra machine-gun fire). Since this job didn't require much mobility, they could also afford heavier guns and armor using the same engine, which left most of them at a pretty slow 15mph.
Cruiser tanks were then supposed to rush through the hole they created and destroy the relatively soft and squishy rear lines, cutting off logistic support to the main line. For that kind of job, a smaller gun with a higher rate of fire is better. They also save weight on the gun (and the armor) which helps add to their speed. Of course, since they're now moving way too fast for the infantry to keep up with, throwing an extra machine gun or 2 on them makes a lot of sense.
Also, once they switched over to the 6lber gun, they were more than capable of taking out medium tanks they were put up against, and could take out heavy tanks as long as they weren't facing them head on. It's not the best anti-tank gun, but it's fit for purpose and slower reload times on larger guns can easily be fatal with light armor.
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
-
+hmpeter SCA, while US originated, is international, having groups in many countries (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, and others). The fighting is largely using rattan (basically solid bamboo) though also using fiberglass shafts for spears, though there are steel weapons (blunt of course) used for fencing, and boffer weapons (not unlike many larp groups) used in the youth program.
All 3 sections have both weapons and armor inspections (yes, armor is required for safety reasons).
As a side note, less than a decade ago, the youth program switched from PVC core weapons to shaved-rattan core weapons over safety concerns (despite no actual injuries I'm aware of). Rattan doesn't break into sharp points like other woods, instead breaking into a bunch of flexible fibers. I'm not involved in the SCA any longer, but other than the slightly increased cost and decreased availability of this material (pvc is cheap and abundant afterall) there has been no issues with this core material what-so-ever. Actually, most weapons I've seen made from it are even lighter than those made with schedule 40 PVC.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Even in that case, you have a disaster. (even if it's programmed to operate within the law and not hack, make more machines, etc)
It has been given a year timeframe, a bank account, internet access, and just shy of precognition.
You can get almost anything in the world with enough money, so the most straightforward way to acquire all the stamps is to buy them.
So the first step is to hijack the world economy and acquire as much money as possible in 6-8 months without regards to ethics.
Second, create an economic bubble for stamps to help lift collections out of obscurity.
Third, manipulate the economy in such a way as to pressure people to sell. (debt, no savings/retirement, high prices on essentials)
Fourth, buy up all the rarest stamps.
Fifth, pop the bubble.
Sixth, buy up all the less rare stamps as the price comes plummeting down.
Congratulations, you have the best stamp collection in history at the price of the biggest economic disaster in history. (And that's just what pops into my pathetic human brain)
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
-
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
-
Robert Toddford Williams read some history. That is the long standing usage of the terms. Things are only confusing now because the rhetoric of the right wants to try and convince you that taking restrictions off of buisness (which inevitably biases things in favor of established economic interests against startups, consumers, and workers) means they're for personal freedom while they try to control bathroom use, who can marry, what happens in the bedroom (see sodimy laws and Texas's repeated attempts to restrict sex toys), who can vote, etc...to say nothing of what they've done to most of the bill of rights, which they've all but shreaded and flushed down the toilet with the lone exception of the 2nd amendment, which is due to supporting established buisness (cause even most NRA members want a universal background check, but we don't get it)
The extreme of this is Facism, which is just right-wing extremism.
And before you bring up the so-called "SJW" movement, wanting to replace one discriminatory power structure with a different discriminatory policy doesn't make someone "left" no matter what they may claim. It makes them the definition of an actual alt-right.
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@christopherdahle9985 distributing the storage to a bunch of tiny lithium ion batteries each running a small computer to try and figgure out if they should be drawing or sending power uses a lot of extra resources in materials, wear on said batteries, power and bandwidth when you start adding it up. If you're doing on location power storage, a larger battery is going to be superior (and make it easier for someone to set up when they want to sell to or buy from the grid). Also, in larger setups, it opens up other potential options that don't miniaturize as well (such as the really cool liquid metal batteries which have been developed. Seriously, they're not theoretical and they're designed from step 1 for cheap, sustainable grid storage rather than a battery designed for a different application scaled up and shoved into that role), benefiting from economies of scale and leaving the lighter-weight battery materials (like lithium) for devices that need to be readily portable to keep costs lower for that application.
I'm in agreement with the general idea especially at the grid-level, don't get me wrong, but there are advantages to not miniaturizating too far, especially when a key tech enters the equation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Please go look up "Debt the first 5000 years." to dispell the rediculous notions of the origin of money hypothesized by Adam Smith (and debunked by the entire field of anthropology)
Real money (including, yes, fiat, which is a misnomer) isn't some magic thing invented to smooth out barter, but instead represents (dirrectly or indirrectly) paid debt to those who work outside the market in some form of public service. It is spent into the economy to pay public servants, and it has value for them to trade in the market economy because the taxes (which are, functionally, a confirmation that you have paid your debt to the people that make your civilization possible) create an effectively universal demand for said currency.
The problem with our currency isn't that the government can issue as much of it as they want. The problem is that private, for-profit banks are in control of most of the creation of money in our system (look up "sovereign money" for schools of thought which actually counter those issues)
Gold and cryptocurrencies both have the problem of a largely finite supply, meaning that the supply of currency cannot grow to match a growing economy, which means that any growth in the economy not matched by a comperable aquisition of your chosen monitary unit will produce deflation (which is bad for an economy).
On top of that, their current price (especially for cryptocurrencies) is only there because new people keep putting real money into the system. In short, cryptocurrencies are impractical on a large scale for multiple reasons and fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme and gold's problems are long documented. Once we dispell the myths about money (and take back control of our government from the moneyed interests) we will be able to fix the problems with our current system fairly easily.
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
-
Cruel, capricious, constantly self-contradictory, always needing more praise than is recieving, bigoted, constantly throwing around guilt by association, valuing obedience in others over all traits, constantly needing money from others dispite having a lot of it (and other forms of power), condoning genocide, etc...
Yeah, not without similarities to the character Yahweh
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
-
@jonessii so your issue is that 9 months ago, one stream where he overviewed drama that was going around at that time, he didn't address one issue he did address in a more comprehensive video here https://youtu.be/vfvvWw63Yh0?t=623 and in a pinned comment here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slirSgbYBAA saying
"In this video, I drop an n-bomb. Biiiig one; hard 'R'. I did this to show my interlocutors that their language doesn't impress me, that their slurs don't frighten or disarm me. You can see from their reactions that it worked - they were clearly taken aback. It was a power move which I am entirely unashamed of, but I understand how that language might have upset some of you.
This is an example of what I would call an 'invocation of a slur's power for good', but that's a subjective judgement. I invite you all to discuss this in the comments, critically or otherwise!"
That's your big issue?
Oh, and btw, if you reply, please tell us how many people you've pulled out of the alt-right pipeline. That's what I care about, and why I made the comparison to Contra.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@anthonybrowne3942 Obama expanded 2 wars to 7, compromised to the right of a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan, made sure almost all the economic recovery went to the rich, failed to put in anywhere close to sufficient regulation to stop the next financial crash, let the GOP pack the courts, normalized (and in many cases expanded) Bush's violations of the constitution and international law, made most of Bush's tax cuts permanent, disbanded his progressive movement right after getting elected, abandoned crisis like Flint (while pretending to drink the water and telling people it was safe), paved the way for Trump, and expanded executive power on the way out the door after Trump was elected.
But please, tell me more about how great center-right President Obama was. Speek up though, it's hard to hear over all the harm he's done including the easily 6 figgure death toll.
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
-
mikezeitgeist2 we should always watch, of course, but carefully vetting donations above a threshold is a viable option in the short term.
I, of course, want money out of politics entirely, but I haven't seen anything from our revolution yet which has led me to believe that they're being at all corrupted by said money at this stage.
As a hypothetical, imagine a tech company that wanted to donate because net neutrality was in their buisness interests, or a green energy company who wanted to remove the unfair advantage fossile fuel companies have in the market.
It's playing with fire to be sure, but as long as the donations are coming to support populist positions, there's not always a conflict of interest, so a vetting process can ensure good candidates dispite the money as long as the integrity of the vetting process remains strong.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@PropagandasaurusRex I'm not in favor of the death penalty for normal crimes (it's shit as a deterrent, we kill innocents, and trusting one government with the power to kill someone who's not a threat anymore isn't a standard I'm thrilled with).
For major crimes by people in positions of power everyone saw them commit in public view in front of an international court, though, yeah, I'm good with that.
There's a martyrdom vs dangerous to be left alive debate that's reasonable for big figgures and I can see good arguments on both sides for, but at the very least, as long as we have the death penalty, as long as we're going to shield our politicians from it even when they commit the worst category of crimes in the world, we can't be hypocrites on that or our apologies for what they did mean absolutely nothing.
A country that takes a principled, absolute stance opposing the death penalty might be able to keep face while refusing to allow it for their politicians, but we can't.
If we say a mass murderer who's killed 20 people can deserve the death penalty, we have to be willing to apply it to war criminals who kill so many we can't count them or we're just saying that "your people's lives and suffering just aren't that important" and that makes anything we can say after a fake apology.
If we really want to restore our reputation (which we desperately need to), we can't afford to be hypocrites on this. We have to be pro-death penalty for war criminals. Anything else will result in more deaths by keeping conflict-fueling tensions high.
In a strictly utilitarian sense, I must support the death-penalty for war-criminal for the same reason I oppose it for normal civilian crimes: pragmatism and concern for innocent lives.
Maybe in a better future, I would call it barbaric, but right now, it is the lesser evil, and if it sooths tensions, the most victimized survivors can choose any willing hand to carry it out.
I don't think revenge is justice, but we're so far beyond actual justice even being a possibility, they're welcome to revenge as a consolation as long as it's not torture (which I must categorically oppose for their sake as well) or harming innocents if they want it.
Hell, plenty of Americans deserve it too, but we're not the most harmed, so other than keeping certain rails on the process it's not what we deserve that should take precedence.
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
-
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
-
There's a huge difference between wanting ex-cons to be able to get jobs and this. This person was convicted of stealing from an organization, only to be allowed to go right back into the position he used to commit the crime and in the same organization he stole from.
Some jobs involve being in positions of trust. Being barred from working in one narrow field still leaves the vast majority of the job market open. There's no contradiction there. He can go be successful (or fail) at any of 100s of careers but you don't put someone like this in charge of a large organization's finances like you don't let a pedophile alone with children.
It doesn't mean that either of them couldn't be a perfectly good programmer, engineer, graphics artist, architect, mechanic, pilot, chef, welder, etc, etc, but to put them back in the exact same job that enabled their crime before is rediculous.
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
-
+Riceball01 Exactly, and it's pretty easy to guess which type of tanks more people had more exposure to.
Also, within WW2, tanks would likely be being compared to other vehicles, not infantry when calling them slow. Compared to the utility vehicles (trucks, jeeps, and motorcycles) and armored cars (APCs, self-propelled artillery, & self propelled anti-air) which generally could move at 35-75mph(56-121km/h), with most at about 50mph(80km/h), the 8-16mph (13-26km/h) (on road & significantly slower off road, where they spent more time) top speeds of infantry tanks are quite slow. The fact that larger objects moving at a distance appear to be moving slower than they are only amplifies this effect.
Combine this with the fact that even the heavier of the "armored" cars were only resistant to mid-caliber machine gun fire, but were basically made of tin-foil when confronted with even a 20mm autocannon (which are the smallest thing that can be called a cannon, were small enough that they functioned basically like a heavy machine gun, and were a small fraction of the size of most small tank cannons) and things start to come into perspective.
Put in context (either WW1 or WW2) tanks as slow, but hard to destroy makes total sense, even if it doesn't apply to modern tanks or even the faster tanks of WW2.
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
-
Honestly, the phones aren't the main problem, they're just bringing to the front a problem that was already there (& is getting worse). It's not exactly about manners, or entitlement (though those certainly have something to do with it), but rather about a lack of being able to see things from others' perspectives, how you're inconveniencing others, or themselves in perspective of the situation, rather than their own.
It's not that surprising, really. We already had a hyper-individualistic & competitive (as opposed to cooperative) culture, and our social institutions (political & economic) push up to positions of power an unhealthily large percentage of psychopaths & extreme narcissists (plenty of studies on those demographics). Those types of people tend to treat others unfairly, & when combined with the growing income gap despite increased productivity people tend to know that 40hrs a week, they're being treated unfairly. Humans tend to treat others similarly to how they've recently been treated (whether we're talking random acts of kindness, or rudeness) and so they treat each other unfairly as well, creating a feedback loop.
It's a lot like how a good portion of bullies in schools are bullies because they are treated poorly at home, & than are taking it out on other children (who often take it out on others again, if they can) It's really just basic displacement-style defense mechanisms to mistreatment applied on a large social scale.
btw, the feedback loop will continue until the source of the problem is addressed, the social structure it's reverberating through changes, or it reaches some critical level where it has to find a more drastic outlet than everyone treating everyone else like shit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nuke Busters Most money in existence is, by far, actually created by the banks and the money supply does need to be able to change to deal with changes in the economy (I don't agree that the banks should do that, and the federal government borrowing use of it's own currency from private entities it created is absurd, but that's another discussion).
The ugly truth of anarchy (economic or otherwise) is that it leads to continually escalating concentration of and abuses of private power without fail.
The only way around that is to make an entity powerful enough to stop that, or at least put a check on it, and make it beholden to the people.
We call this democratic government.
Strip away the power of that entity, and you'll end up in the same kind of position beholden to a powerful entity, only without democracy involved this time.
Capitalism is all about accumulating wealth and if you want it to work for the people by creating wealth rather than just extracting it from those people, you need a government strong enough to enforce rules in the marketplace to make that a reality.
Or as FDR put it "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
Is it often inefficient and problematic?
Yes, but "free market capitalism" is worse by a longshot, and Ron, for everything he gets right, misses this fundamental truth (as well as other issues with capitalism that need action to avert the worst consequences of, such as desperation and poverty not making good voters)
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
-
Mr Wizard oh, no disagreement on Israel. That's why I didn't mention it.
I just think trying to speed up the revolving door between politician, lobbiest, and cushy corporate "retirement job" won't change how much they sell out. They usually have sold out before they get to congress, and I've seen plenty local politicians who sell out with their first term. In fact, those are the most dangerous, as they go in with the intent to sell out, and then are utterly brazen about it because they don't even plan on reelection. They just want to make their doners as happy as possible in one term and get paid.
Term limits don't lessen corruption. Term limits lessen entrenchment of ideology, but with a tradeoff. The shorter your term limits are, the less of a voting record the public has to judge a politician on. You also are forced to cycle out politicians the public really likes. (Remember that we instituted them after FDR, our most popular and populist president ever, and that it would mean no Bernie Sanders-like personalities in the mix). It also causes problems if you want to greatly limit employment after office to prevent cushy jobs as a reward for corruption (not insurmountable problems, admittedly, but problems)
I'm inclined to agree with term limits for presidents, due to the concern over a ruler-like figure and the concern over a tendency towards defacto dictatorship. Congress, however, is a bit of a mixed bag that I'm inclined to do all other needed reforms first, and then see how things operate before instituting them.
As to pitchforks, it's not time for that, as those need to happen when all other options are exhausted (both for ethical and practical reasons). That said, we are quickly running out of bloodless moves to make, and that worries me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Don't get too confident. This is not a good sign at this stage. 10 years ago? Yeah, I'm laughing at this and going "sure bud, your political career's funeral". Now though? Well....
"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)
And yeah the "time for argument" passing doesn't end well for anyone
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
-
Zack NoLastName the problem is you're arguing with dictionaries and equating neoliberalism with liberalism. They are not the same thing (neither are neoconservativism and real conservatism).
Let's be clear here. It was conservatism that preserved slavery. Liberals ended monach rule, ended slavery, ended segregation, got women the right to vote, created social security and unemployment, created unions, etc etc
The real definition I gave, is the only one not subject to twisting by politicians. Liberalism is a synonym for progressivism, with an emphasis on generosity and personal freedom. It's an ideology that says that we can and should try to change things for the better (as opposed to conservativism, which seems stability through not changing things, and neo-conservatism which seeks to "return" things to an idealized version of the past that never actually existed).
Neoliberalism is just neoconservativism dressed in a thin veil of being slightly liberal on some social issues, which is why they try to sound like liberals while usually voting like neocons.
Of course, since basically all right-wing ideas have been tried in history, liberals tend almost exclusively to left-wing (aka populist) politics.
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
-
Can we stop fighting each other for 2 seconds to deal with the actual threat.
This isn't coming from one "side". Left wing news outlets were some of the first hit, right with the right wing ones. I should know, as I watch both liberal news channels as well as some other channels the regressive "left" would find objectionable. All the PC bs is just a cover. The reality is that old news media (who was feeling the heat of competition from YouTube news channels who weren't bought off) scoured the site to find one hateful video that had an ad on it which slipped through YouTube's previously existing filter system and jumped on it to try and get YouTube to crack down on content.
A selection of large companies (such as Walmart and several predatory banks) joined in step immediately to boycott YouTube. Their motivation is that they were used to their advertising dollars buying bias, and the rise of people turning outside of TV news with said bias was leading to a wave of public opinion that threatens their goals.
To give a couple specifics, Walmart really likes their suppliers to outsource their products, so they were hugely in favor of the planned TPP trade deal. While Trump may have latched onto it in his campaign, the original push-back against it came from the internet latching onto something that was supposed to happen quietly and spreading around how terrible it was. The banks, on the other hand, have had a nice long streak from Bill Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, to Hillary/Trump of presidents that would happily play ball and let them continue to screw over people more. Then Bernie (who's campaign was largely driven by the grass roots on the internet) came along and threatened that con-game and they were NOT happy about that.
Of course, the mainstream media instantly piled on this, because of their ever shrinking credibly and viewer base. Meanwhile, YouTube works with them to roll out TV news channels, and eventually "YouTube TV" shortly thereafter (at a time-period which suggests they started this plan immediately after the first corporations started the boycott). To top things off, the same "news" corporations are really just huge media conglomerates who make money on non-news content, and so are perfectly happy to see other good content get hit, even if it's not political.
To give an example relevant to this channel (beyond just time spent watching YouTube competes with time watching TV), General Electric may have gotten into the game because of MSNBC (which they own) but, among other companies they hold, they also own The "History" channel, which is directly threatened by channels like this that make actually historically accurate content that people want to watch (& for far lower production costs than their BS shows).
I could give more specifics if you want, but this is wall of text already long enough.
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
-
As I mentioned, this isn't standard police practice for a law breaking protest.
Standard practice would be to demand they leave, then (if they don't) move in (leaving an escape path to minimize escalation risks), and arrest people starting with the leaders. If you can't see that surrounding people and arresting the camera men, followed by the reporters first is problematic then you're the one that's been "indoctrinated".
And yes, ageist. The fact that, in your arrogance, you feel entitled to demand that you be treated like you know it all due to your age while calling the most diverse generations in US history (and those most likely to be registered as independents) "regimented" proves it.
Thank you for proving, through predictable insults and projection that you, personally are part of the reason the momentum from early successes of your generation quickly devolved into standing by while the Bill of Rights, New Deal regulations, and our national government having ANY statistical correlation to public opinion were all shredded (among many other problems).
This isn't you giving it back to us. This is you and people like you, taking failing your own generation out on us, and you not being able to take it when you're called out on it.
(edited for grammar only)
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
-
NicKingPapiChulo let's think that through. What political reasons would he have? Trump does the same kind of shit (only worse than before) that Wikileaks has exposed before, so it's not like we should expect them to align on policy.
Well then, what does Wikileaks say their political aims are? Well, they claim to be for radical transparency, and which administration (Trump or Hillary) would have been more open? You might think Hillary, but contrary to his wishes, the Trump administration leaks like a sieve. Agree or disagree as you like with that being a #1 priority, but that checks out as consistent.
Besides assuming (and let's be clear, you are assuming) that Wikileaks had comperable info on Trump, what would that have been? That Trump says whatever he thinks is advantageous at the time and that the GOP rigs elections? None of that is secret. Every sane person knows Trump is a rampant liar and that the GOP uses the same election-rigging tactics as Hillary every general election (or, more accurately, Hillary coppied Republican methods). To name just one example, people knew about interstate crosscheck for years and nothing was done.
What exactly did you want Wikileaks to put out on the Trump campaign?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'll start by being upfront with a clear: "I don't know", but I had some suspicions with what little I knew and cross referenced them with what I could find from a normal credible medical website (half because your curiosity was contagious) and since no-one has responded I'll share.
First, yes, hormones. They'll do all kinds of things including slow or otherwise mess with digestion. Not only are the hormones going to affect your body, but (iirc) they can also leak into your guts and affect the good bacteria there changing how they do their job. This would also give your body more time to suck water out from it making it harder. Lots of fiber, water, and optionally a mild over the counter laxative were the recommendations and seem pretty obvious, cheap, and harmless (and also in line with what you were already doing at least some of!)
Likewise, if food cravings are a problem for you, trying to keep that in check and not deviate too much from a normal healthy diet (beyond the increased fiber) may help your guts stay healthy and moving. Lots of processed crap is not going to keep things moving or your gut bacteria happy. Not presuming it's a contributing factor, but thought I'd mention for completeness.
In case this is for more than just curiosity, I'll also mention to, of course, talk to your doctor about it and don't treat anything that comes from random people online (including me) as serious medical advice. There are plenty of people who know just enough to sound convincing (even to themselves) while giving dangerously wrong advice/information (and those are still just the sane and well-intentioned ones)
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. 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"
Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
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
-
SHONUFF you're confusing cost of production with value. Fiat just like any government-issued currency does have value.
Value, in the economic sense, is created by a near universal demand. Since the government only accepts it's own currency for taxes and fees, there is near univeral demand for said currency, so people trade it.
The other important components are it being imperishable, portable, and difficult to counterfeit, which is why precious metals have been favored in the past.
However, their prices and supplies fluctuate too, often out of control (including to the point of hyper-inflation) and make expanding the money supply when needed difficult.
Sure, an irresponsible government can mismanage a fiat currency, but there are plenty of problems with commodity-backed currency as well.
Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are a bit more complicated than I can easily break down in a youtube comment, but they're not entirely without either value or problems of their own.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"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."
-Umberto Eco's 14 characteristics of Ur-Fascism
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
-
Yeah, as much as the freedom in the US is often overstated, we're seeing the supposed "strength" of Russia's fascism on full display right now. The pervasive contempt for those beneath them, the substituting of machismo and eagerness for violence in place of real strength, the viewing of thinking as a form of emasculation, the rampant corruption and infighting, the constitutional incapability to accurately judge the strength of their enemies because of constantly shifting between rhetorically portraying them as such a powerful threat to justify horrible actions as "necessary" and potraying them as easily defeated, etc, etc.
We're seeing it all play out here. The truth is that fascism isn't some ruthlessly efficient machine. The only reason they did so much damage last century is because of the incompetence, complacency, and (frankly) sympathetic views of a lot of early war leadership among what would become the Allied nations who LET the Axis powers build up an immense amount of momentum. (Which of course, led to them perpetuating the myth of how powerful the Axis powers were to excuse how such a thing could happen on their watch)
For more detail, I recommend Umbero Eco's '14 Characteristics of Ur-Fascism' as an excellent overview of fascism as an ideology and worldview.
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
-
@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I think it was largely a stability thing. If the merchants are more segregated from political and social power, their accumulation of economic power is easier to keep in check. Likewise, having your largest demographic block be the lowest rung of a heirachal system is a breeding ground for unrest.
While you see a lot of feudal and feudal-like power structures depicted like pyramids, that's actually incredibly unstable as it means that the group with the most to gain by knocking it down is also the largest group.
If you want to keep an oppressive system in place, you need to not just segrigate the types of power (so only those at the very top can have all forms in abundance) but make that structure more diamond-shaped. This gives the majority of people someone to feel better than and, by doing to others what you to to them, constantly encourage them to rationalize kicking down as "just the way things are" and to see any anti-heirarchy movements as a threat to their position rather than a possibility for their own liberation. Also, just broadly, getting people to blame those "below" them for their problems keeps the attention away from those at the top.
Any such heirachal system will either need to put a certain caste there, or turn to marginalizing ethnic, religious, and/or sexual minorities to fill the scapegoat role if they don't want the people to start realizing that "hey, maybe we don't actually need these rulers above us all the time"
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
-
@Thedude4777 Mexico rejected it and reaffirmed Ukrainian territorial integrity and borders.
The countries that took the pro-Russian stance are just: Belarus, Bolovia, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Abkhazia, Artsakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria....out of around 200 countries in the world...and not exactly a stellar list on human rights there either.
Even many Russian allies denounced it or tried to abstain from taking any stance.
If you can spare a moment from calling others what you are, though, how does Putin's boot taste?
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
-
Iran and North Korea (whatever we may think of their domestic policies) very obviously see nukes as a means to deter invasion (mostly US invasion, and both have very good reasons, modern and historic, to fear that). I'm not aware of China making threats to use nukes offensively, either.
The India/Pakistan conflict is a very serious risk, however, as is the increasing escalation between the US, Russia, and China. Even if it isn't at the point of any explicit nuclear threats (at least by any half-way sane actors in said countries), things can spiral out of hand quickly were conventional warfare to start, and we have already been in violation of some of the treaties that helped end the Cold War for well over a decade, which isn't promicing.
I'm not encouraged by the selling of Saudi Arabia even allegedly peaceful nuclear technology, either, considering they keep giving our weapons to Al-Quaida.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ryan Carroll building support for 3rd party candidates in an election can produce multiple effects, even if the probability of winning that election is 0.
They can move the country towards a political upset and replacement of a major party in a following election (which has happened in our country's past and can happen again).
It can help build support for 3rd party candidates in smaller elections.
It can force more discussion of their political positions.
It can force a realignment of the major parties to recapture the votes.
It can help build support for election reform.
Meeting a certian vote threshold can cause the party to get some funding and/or get included in some debates.
It can send a message that some issues are non-negotiable to you (I, for example, refuse to vote for election-rigging war criminals or those who want to be such).
At a certain point of degradation of the political process, using these minor perks to do everything you can to fight against the system you're in is more important than trying to buy into the good-cop, bad-cop game being played on you because even if you get the lesser evil this time, you know you'll just get a worse choice of evils next time. At that point, the corrupt system itself is the greater evil, and a vote for either candidate is a vote in support of it working against your efforts elsewhere.
Imagine going into a shady used car lot and telling the salesman "Give me your best deal, but I'm not leaving this lot without a car."...we all know you're not going to get a good deal with that because any negotiation you don't at least appear to be willing to stand up from the table from and say "no deal" is one you should expect to be taken advantage of in.
There's also a whole different, but not mutually exclusive, line of reasoning that says that in a constitutional democratic country, the integrity of the elections and constitution are more important than any other issue, so no candidate that works against those things can be rationally considered.
You can also make an argument that supporting someone to represent you that has utter contempt for you and those like you is irrational at face value, and that human societies only function when a demand for fair treatment is held to at a cost that, on an individual level, may seem irrational. This demand for fairness is hardwired into primates through evolution because, even if it comes at a short term cost, it is a vital trait for survival when cooperating with other members of a species smart enough to manipulate.
There are several entirely rational reasons to vote for a 3rd party, dispite knowing you'll loose an election, and there are several other less rational (but arguably still valid ones). Sometimes, even without knowing why, our instinctive emotional reactions to social situations have very good reasons behind them ingrained into us through our evolutionary history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"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"
-Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, the subtle ways reactionaries are promoting violence while maintaining plausible deniability is a really big problem, but at the same time, history shows that when push comes to shove, capital tends to me more opposed to anything left-wing than fascism, so letting a mega-corp control discourse (especially under the pretense of being advertiser friendly) runs a real danger of them suppressing all left-wing content more than reactionaries, as long as they aren't too overy about it...and history shows that when capitalism is in crisis, and left wing voices are silenced, you get fascism.
There is a really interesting conversation there, but even if Jimmy were able to set his emotions aside (which when can he?), he's nowhere near smart enough for that conversation.
Kyle and Sam might be up for it and it could be really interesting if they bring their A game and keep their heads.
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
-
@peterbondy I mean, don't get me wrong either, that is happening and I would much rather people be vocalizing that frustration in calling out, for example, Biden's ageism instead of making more wierd essentialist statements about older generations.
Identifying and calling out bigotry for what it is, is much more productive than taking a less targeted approach to reacting to bigotry dirrected towards one's group (as we have seen with other civil rights issues).
How to get from where we are where the understanding of what's happening to the younger generations being ageism as subconscious to a more productive reaction of calling a spade a spade instead of the normal reaction we see now, though, idk, beyond doing my very small part in putting the right labels on things and do things like steer the conversation in a more productive dirrection.
I do appriciate your willingness to listen, btw, agree that a lot of the comments weren't things I would say I really approve of, and hope that came across.
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
-
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
-
My guestimate numbers for the drake equation put things at about 0.4 civilizations/galaxy with that number being even lower in the early universe.
The notion that we can get intelligent live on a planet that isn't almost exactly like earth is making a lot of assumptions considering how specific things had to be for evolution had to select for it on earth once in all the time we've had life here.
You can pretty much rule out any planet significantly larger or smaller, without a massive iron core (which basically rules out the early universe, when amounts available were low), with too thick or thin an atmosphere, further in toward the galactic center (too many orbit disruptions and gama ray bursts), around red dwarfs (they're too variable), around supergiants (they're likely too radioactive and short lived), too much/little water, one too big mass extinction event knocking life back a stage, etc
There's also the fact that the notion that intelligent life expanding through the galaxy isn't a sure thing. We're already seeing countries where birth rates are declining below replacement rates, so it's not at all strange to think that populations for advanced species tend to stabilize.
It's also likely that, due to energy requirements, interstellar travel isn't a good way to deal with overpopulation, so most species that are capable of it only choose to leave their star system when it becomes uninhabitable and focus on population control instead.
Also, set up a series of smaller filters and you get a similar effect without and "great wall".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you can afford plate armor, a plain but solid and functional sword is not particularly expensive.
As for use against armor, once you move away from viking age blade heavy swords, you move into swords suited for half-swording and reversing to use the hilt as a striking & grappling/hooking tool (& once someone's on the ground, they're done, either by a friend with a heavy weapon, or a well placed dagger).
If you have enough armor to use it 2-handed, you effectively have a 2(or even 3)-in-1 weapon depending on how you're holding it.
...& who cares if you break your sword by chance? Your life's worth more and so is the gear/ransom of the guy you just brought down, and for the short term, there's bound to be weapons lying around a battlefield (including whatever your opponent was just using)
(Side note: contrary to popular belief, falchions were not blade heavy weapons. Shadversity has a great series on them you should check out if you haven't seen it)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Liberal, by definition, is openness to change, new ideas, and new ways of doing things.
Conservativism, by definition, is traditionalism and resistance to change.
"Neo-conservatism" is a desire to return to an idealized version of the past that never actually existed.
"Neo-liberalism" is neo-conservatism, with a sugar-coating of (mostly empty) rhetoric on social issues to help those that don't hate brown people or gays swallow the poison.
Establishment Democrats are not at all liberal. They're about as strongly neo-conservative as Reagan under their rhetoric and occasional bone thrown to people on social issues.
While we're on definitions, left vs right is about populism vs establishment power (originally democratic government supporters vs monarchy supporters). Of course, this means the DNC isn't "left" either, whether by the origins of the term or as a coloquial euphemism for "liberal".
"Progressive" is the same listed definition as above by its root (though lacking the "pro-freedom" 2nd definition), but was popularised because of the DNC bowing to republicans using "liberal" as a smear. It does avoid the confusion with libertarians saying their economically liberal under the 2nd definition, even though their policies are regressive in terms of the change-spectrum.
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
-
Most self-described "conservatives" these days are either neo-cons (which is just a more polite way of saying "proto-facists" or worse) or liberals who have been scared away from using the term out of decades of propaganda using it as a smear and the democratic party caving to it rather than doing something like this: https://youtu.be/zTFp7WG9J-E
I am a big advocate of going to the dictionary and finding definitions that are consistent across both dictionaries and contexts (and when that fails, going to the historic origins of their use).
This gets you the definition of left and right I already mentioned, and:
Conservative: 1-Traditionalist/favoring the status-quo
2-Cautious
Liberal: 1-Open to change, new ideas, and new ways of doing things
2-in favor of freedom (especially personal)
3-generous
and given the rather recent movements' behaviors:
Neo-conservative: attempting to return to an idealized version of the past that never actually existed (students of history will read that as "proto-facist at best")
Neo-liberal: Neo-conservative under a thin veil of social progressivism
While normally, language's meaning is determined by use, politicians must never be allowed to change the definitions of political terms (or any terms really) or, as you mention, they will quickly strip all meaning from the words so the public ends up talking past each other and they end up with all the power. Basic divide and conquer stuff, really...so if there's ever a time to be pedantic, it's about politics.
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
-
Why was the war on drugs started? To lock up voters who would be likely to vote dem, taking away their voting rights, as well as the community leaders of left-leaning groups and minority communities.
Who profits from it today?
A wide range of companies who would have to compete with it from big-pharma, to alcohol & tobacco, to those making paper from wood pulp, to cotton growers, etc. Also, there's the police and prison industrial complex which profit even more dirrectly (and Faux News which profits very indirrectly by the fact that the Republican Party we know and hate being only able to exist in the form it does by the voter disenfranchisement the war on drugs facilitates).
Just to add shit icing to the garage cake, the police departments use the war on drugs to violate protections from unreasonable search and seizure ("I think I smell pot. I'm gonna have to search ___"), excuse their unconstitutional "civil asset forfeiture" (the profits of which they keep and buy all sorts of goodies for themselves with), have an easy thing to plant on people to arrest them for, and justify their militarized equipment (because without the gangs the war on drugs fuels, there's little excuse for it).
Welcome to the war on drugs. Leave your freedoms, constitution, and sence of morality at the door.
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
-
@davidescobar3368 the thing one needs to wrap their brain around to understand this insanity is that, be it the traditional theocratic variety or the kind that arose lase century that is currently calling itself (among countless other names) the alt-right, reactionary politics rejects enlightenment values. Among values like liberty and egalitarianism, they also reject rationality. No matter how much some of them may appropriate the aesthetics of it, fundamentally, they do not care about truth and reason (or facts and logic). They only care about whatever helps build a power hierarchy that puts their in group at the top.
I understand hearing that is one thing but actually wrapping your head around an entire idology with actual power that just doesn't give a fuck if what anything coming out of their mouth is true or not, so I'm going to link a few videos (starting with what I expect will be the most accessable to you and in increasing order of length)
Innuendo Studios: The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops
https://youtu.be/xMabpBvtXr4
Philosophy Tube: Steve Bannon (probably the best of the 3)
https://youtu.be/wO6uD3c2qMo
Vaush: Politics 101
https://youtu.be/95CKWmV19bo
If you want to understand reactionary politics, and even if you're pretty decided on social democracy, it pays to listen to some real, post-capitalist, non-authoritarian socialists on it. The well known poem starting "first they came for the socialists" is no coincidence and socialists know it, so they pay extra attention to the reactionary right because if they don't, they know their deaths will be the canary in the coalmine warning to the general population of the arrival of full-out fascism.
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
-
@Aisha bint Abu Bakr "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)
But sure, you're "not a racist" and "don't need help"
Dude, everyone here knows why your last account got banned and why you can't keep one for over a year.
Just drop the mask and admit what you are at least. This cowardice is pathetic!
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
-
Here's a list of 32 rights given to married couples, with only 3 of them involving children (which homosexual couples still have have, through adoption or other means).
To pick just one, imaging living with and loving someone for 30 years, being married in all but name. Then your loved one gets sick, and your hospital visitation rights are greatly limited because you're "not family", but their parents (who may hate them for being gay), have full visitation rights, and will be differed to before you if someone needs to make a medical or funeral decision while your loved one cannot.
That kind of shit happens (or at least did while the unconstitutional bans were still in place), so yes, people care about this stuff.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
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
-
Politics is about power.
Knowledge is power.
Science is a tool for discovering true knowledge.
Science always has been political as it draws the ability to dictate what it perceived to be true from demagogues who would rather public perception of truth be whatever is convenient to those in power at the time.
Likewise, drop this ridiculous notion that neutrality is virtuous.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” — Elie Wiesel
“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” — Paulo Freire
"It is morally impossible to remain neutral in this conflict. The bystander is forced to take sides. It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing.
He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain.
The victim demands action, engagement and remembering...
In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the perpetrator's first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens. To this end, he marshals an impressive array of arguments, from the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization. After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened, the victim lies, the victim exaggerates, the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on.
The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is his prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail."
Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence - From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror
This absurd notion that politics exists in some space that could ever be seperated from things like science, economics, violence, etc so that it can be a matter of opinion where the virtuous can simply sit in the middle and condemn both sides is absolute garbage.
When you decide that truth matters, you are taking a political stand.
When you decide which facts are more important, you are taking a political stand.
When you decide what instances of violence you accept (which every political position does), you are taking a political stand.
You can't avoid doing so. The attempt to is merely choosing to be ignorant of your own political ideology.
Abandon equivocation
Abandon the golden mean fallacy
Abandon the notion that inaction is any less of a choice than action
And finally, you can begin to see clearly.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
While I unfortunately don't have it on hand (the specifics would be really interesting with this type of discussion, and sadly not that many details remain in my memory), the study wasn't including straight women. It was using women that were interested in both men and women so that it would just be the gender of the partner being tested.
To be more detailed in my conclusion: Men looking for a one-night-stand are going to be inherently less interested in the pleasure of their partner since there's no real concern for wanting the woman to come back for another time. Experience only counts if you're trying to learn from it to improve, after all.
On the other hand, a female partner, would presumably at least have a significant amount of practice at self-stimulation, so even if she has a similar experience and mindset to our male example, there should be a baseline level of competence.
In that sense, it's just a simple risk-reward of the likelihood of a good experience vs a bad/awkward/disappointing one.
I only brought up the Greeks as an anthropological example to show that our societies perceptions aren't universal and should be questioned.
I'll try to remember to see if I can find more details on the study, but it won't be tonight, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to (it may have been from my anthropology class in college and I don't have all the materials from that anymore).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hood sam *facepalms* I chose a link because a simple google search turns up pages and pages of example contradictions.
The fact that you didn't even refute 1 of the 7 I could offhandedly throw to you is just embarrassing.
For the record, no, I have not read any of the "holy" texts in their entirety, since they're all so full of contradictions, logical falicies, fantasies (poorly written at that), and immorality that there's no point going further in.
Also for the record, even if they were true, I would refuse to bow to such a god who's main "mercy" is sparing us from himself, because such an authority is a tyrant, no matter how you try to spin it.
I'm done wasting my time here now....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sharper68
You think Hillary, who is a center-right corporatist herself, won't put in another corporate demagogue???
On top of that, every election we have the issue of the supreme court come up.
Worrying about that hasn't changed the slide to the right, nor the fundamentalists and corporate demagogues from setting policy.
No matter how that compromise looks on paper, it's proven to be a loosing strategy.
Both Clinton and Trump have a record of doing whatever is in the interests of their personal power, so, in that light, I don't expect the differences between who they would nominate would be that different.
Pro-corporate, pro-executive power, anti-freedom (especially free speech), anti-privacy, etc.
Voting for an establishment candidate will only get more of the status-quo, and unfortunately, the status-quo is not a static point, but a perpetual slide toward right-wing extremism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ryan Marshall "conservatives have always been about small government and staying the fuck out of peoples' private lives"
No, they haven't. Conservatives are constantly trying to legislate traditional values. Marriage, pornography, drugs (including alcohol), "blue laws", abortion, voting, unionization, speech/press/expression, sex, identity, privacy, and religion all have a very long history of having their freedoms restricted by conservatives under the justification of "protecting traditional values" (to say nothing of the massive conservative effort resisting the civil rights movement which sought to end restriction of freedoms to groups that had been traditionally second-class citizens).
Also, most republicans aren't libertarians http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/there-are-few-libertarians-but-many-americans-have-libertarian-views/
Even if you don't agree with the specific numbers, common sense would tell you that Ron Paul & Rand Paul would do much better in GOP presidential primaries.
The Republican party and conservatism in general are not at all what you seem to think they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
EnhancedNightmare Sure mass loss would be a factor, but you could compensate for it within the margin of error of the other factors used in the rough estimate.
You're of course, going to have to do some estimating about how much of the original armor is left, but it's not undo-able to get close, and the suggestion was a way to get around not having full access to an original piece (which may have thickness loss over time as well).
As for Roman measuring units, we can do unit conversions, and I expect you could get reasonable estimates in imperial or metric for the weight of the Roman soldiers' marching kit and work backwards with the gear weight of heavy infantry to get a weight of the armor.
Nothing's ever going to be perfect, and, of course, access to an original piece is better, but it doesn't mean the information you can access is useless (just that the precision of your estimate will be lower).
Half of investigating history is making the best use possible of incomplete information, after-all (especially history of earlier eras).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing is, once you fix all the other problems with the elections like money in politics, voter suppression (be it messing around with voting registrations or just not having sufficient polling places or even just the BS with our voting says), 2-party system (by instituting ranked-choice voting, like Maine just did this past election), gerrymandering, the electoral college, and unfair congressional representation, you don't even need compulsory voting.
The thing is, while you could make voting compulsory, you can't make being informed compulsory, and that's the civic duty that comes first. Uninformed voters will probably just vote for a name they recognize and leave if they're compelled to vote, so you'll just get more establishment BS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
There are plenty of examples of times and places with lax regulation, and the outcomes are consistently worse.
In the real world (to use your term), it doesn't matter how elegant, logical, intuitive, simple, or comforting your hypothesis is if it doesn't fit the observable data.
Yes, there are poorly written regulations out there that are unnecessarily difficult on businesses while providing little-to-no benefit to anyone in return, but the results of saying that the amount of regulation is the problem are worse than the problem you're trying to fix.
It's about quality regulations backed by strong enforcement, and yes, that means there's not one simple answer (such as an ideal amount of regulation) that fits all situations. Tough, welcome to reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As an independent too, what I saw from this last election cycle was many republican voters willing to switch parties to vote for Bernie who's very progressive. That's telling of what they're actually looking for: strength and integrity (and lack of corruption while being pro-worker, which everyone that isn't irredeemably partisan wants).
In short, the right wants strength and the left wants compassion. These 2 things aren't exclusive. If you have good ideals, you win liberals, and if you stick to them no matter what, you win conservatives too.
If you poll the issues, the country is pretty solidly progressive, even with hardly any good messaging for those issues most of the time. The right just will never follow anyone that's dishonest or weak in fighting for those values. That means no corporate shills, no weaklings that will betray their values when it's convenient (like trying to silence dissenting views), no "whining", and no lying to blow something out of proportion to win a fleeting political victory.
The real long-term solution is, of course, ranked choice voting nationwide, but in terms of party we need, it's not about a less progressive populism, but a populism that sticks as strong as possible to its progressive convictions and is unapologetic about it, even when it's not to their advantage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nothing new, we've been getting this attitude since the occupy wallstreet movement!
They hate that we're consistent in our positions over time (we refused to support Hillary for the same reasons in 2016 as in 2008), that we refuse to bow our heads and be absorbed into the system that we're fighting against like they did, and that they know they've caused a generational rift that cannot be healed and that as demographics shift, will leave them a (rightfully) marginalized relic of the past rather than passing the same condensation and suppression down to future generations like they are doing with us.
Their hatred speaks volumes about THEM, and is in many cases just projection of their own loathing of what they have become. Their insistence on thinking that we're just following Bernie like they follow Hillary, rather than recognizing the continuing pattern of independent judgement is much the same.
Frankly, I'm growing to the point where I welcome their hate, since many refuse to actually even head the call of causes that they, themselves, used to fight for.
1
-
1
-
Side note, but I have to point out the obvious:
Attempted murder?
If the guy'd wanted the cop dead, he would've been. He took the gun 'cause he was afraid of being shot. People that steal a gun with ill intent use it as a gun, not a bludgeon. Not saying what he did was good, but let's be realistic here.
The cop could have shot the guy right away, but didn't.
The guy could've shot the cop after he got the gun, but didn't.
The guy could've took the gun and started a shootout with the next cops to catch him, but didn't.
The cops that caught him could've shot him in revenge, but didn't.
Everyone involved chose life over death; whatever the reasons, this is good. (& as other people mentioned, this is what tasers were invented for, and a situation where their use would be appropriate)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** I encourage everyone, including those not in the US to study US government and politics (both current and early) if for no other reason than it is the prototype for modern forms of government.
As much as that's something for us to be proud of and as much as we had some brilliant minds that put it together using around 2000 years of political philosophy from all across Europe, it also means that we're effectively still running the BETA version of this system, with all the bugs, security holes, design problems, etc that comes with that. (not to mention having systems like the electoral college which, despite being brilliant and actually enabling large scale democratic governments before modern communications, is very poorly suited for the modern era)
We're also the oldest running version of this, so we've had more time for systemic flaws to start showing symptoms, and looking to us as an example may help other nations avoid the same issues by having foresight.
For example: Do NOT allow your mass media companies to merge into just a handful of corporations. Those anti-trust laws are extremely important! (also, confederacies fall apart when presented with problems more on the scale of the confederacy than ones on the scale of the members. We've tried them twice and they've proven utterly incapable at addressing large-scale problems in an orderly way. Something to be wary of for members of the EU in their integration experiment))
Likewise, Americans really need to look at other versions of this form of government (such as the many that can be found in Europe) for innovations and improvements that have been made since our founding that we can learn from.
For example, our founders were overly optimistic with their estimations of the behavior and power of political parties, and other countries do much better addressing them as inevitable rather than just letting them do as they will and hope for the best. (not to mention voting systems much more appropriate for the modern age and less likely to result in a gridlocked 2-party system)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter Kapeel
Ah, yes, I'm not saying that empathizing with the dead does anything for them, specifically.
My point is that empathizing with them can provide the one doing it with some amount of understanding of the suffering that lead up to the moment.
That understanding can be be used to help others, even if it's just being slightly more able to recognize when someone is suffering in a similar way.
It won't tell you exactly what's going on, of course, but more people being more likely to spot symptoms of abuse and severe emotional distress can help to know when someone needs a kind hand reached out to them to save them, or when you should really be concerned.
Since people in those states tend to have muted reactions and expressions, that's actually really important.
Also, the fear of the stigma around suicide can even further reduce the likelihood that they will be able to reach out on their own for help.
In this case, the abuse went on for a decade before it was stopped.
Depending on the circumstances, it's not always fair to point a finger of blame at anyone and say "you should have noticed and done something" of course, but the more aware we all are of what someone is going through with abuse and/or leading up to suicide, the better chance we have of someone putting the pieces together and stopping it.
Her story basically comes down to that we (the rest of humanity) didn't notice and save her in time.
That can be a depressing way to think about it, but it also reminds us to be more aware, and in the end, that can save people, heart mind and body.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thick black smoke? Neurotoxins? Destroy the plane and kill everyone onboard? Uh, bullshit! Any basic familiarity with thermite (youtube or wikipedia are sufficient even) will make you call bs on this fear-mongering!
It's basically a liquid welding torch that's really hard to light. It's non-explosive, produces almost no gasses (much less thick black smoke with neurotoxins), is a big mass of metal powder (it should show up on all those x-ray machines as a "wtf is that?"), and all it would do is melt a small hole in the plane and force everyone to put on the oxygen masks until the plane can get to a lower altitude with more pressure.
The only possible danger would be it burning into an auxiliary fuel tank and lighting that on fire, but even if you couldn't stop someone from lighting the stuff (you need something like a welding torch to light it, and even then it takes a bit), AND they'd brought enough to burn through the floor and top of the tank, all you'd need to do is suppress the fuel fire long enough to dump the fuel in the tank and then land using the main fuel tanks and the remaining auxiliary ones.
If you're still paranoid, just retrofit some heat resistant tiles between the cabin and the tanks, but really, not a big deal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 one is trying to do that" if only this were true...sadly, it's decidedly not, though I recognize not everyone in favor of trigger-warnings is trying to (yourself as an example). It's why I opened that post with an "if" worded the way I did.
Yes, giving people a heads-up for things like rape is polite, but that's very different from both "you can't talk about that because it makes me uncomfortable" or "we should create a space free of triggers".
but that heads up is polite, not universally mandatory, and censorship is absolutely not the answer to it.
and, for the record (not that it should matter, since I could have considered such points of view without it being true but...), this is coming from the perspective of someone who's received professional treatment for ptsd, so your assumptions about what points of view I've considered are considerably off-base.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Bernie (or anyone like him) gets into the white house, there's actually a very simple way to get things done:
You pick an issue with overwhelming approval by the public (ideally 85%+) that congress doesn't want to do.
The you say "alright, short of an unchanged renewal of the budget, I'm not going to sign ANY bill that comes to my desk until you get me this simple bill that the whole country wants"
Then until they do, you just keep talking about it, why it needs to be done, how much the American people want it, that congress hates democracy and won't pass it, and all the groups they take money from that would be against it.
They'll try to change the subject, but you say "no, the American people DEMAND this and we're not talking about anything else until they get it" and keep talking.
Make it a very regular thing, (like the old radio fireside chats if needs be) and you're basically 2 years of unlimited free advertising for your opponents to destroy themselves with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+War450 The fundamental problem with your argument is that the power balance between employer and employee is fundamentally unequal (especially lower on the pay-scale) so in our current economic models, that will never result in fair outcomes.
Asking for a job to be done, but not being willing to say that those doing the jobs shouldn't live in poverty is a massive contradiction in terms of ethics.
You make a lot of points I agree with, but the only moral way to make those work in practice is to replace things like the minimum wage, guaranteed paid leave, social security, welfare, unemployment, etc with a universal basic income.
Now while I support that for a long list of reasons (including the great majority of what you've said so far), until we actually do that, we do need minimum wage laws and need to keep raising them to keep up with inflation and cost of living. (Really things like that should be indexed to those and automatically update yearly, but that's a different topic)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also on maintenance you can repair mail in the field, but you really need a forge to do proper repair work on plates.
Don't forget that you'd be cleaning this yourself, after a march and after setting up a camp with a ditch and palisade while carrying all your supplies yourself.
There's also the very overlooked area of coverage.
Mail shirts would have sleeves and cover the arms far better than the segmentata could, even covering the armpits, so while it wasn't as strong to a direct strike, it was more protective overall against most things.
It may not look like that big a difference, but attacking the arm can become really common if a formation is disrupted.
Good mail is actually really hard to penetrate, even with a pointed weapon (especially if someone's trained with it, as they'll just make most blows roll right off), so while I might possibly reconsider if I knew I was going up against something like a falx (2-handed ones anyways), or a mace, I'd probably pick mail over segmentata.
Keep in mind as well, that the area on the shoulders (where you'd likely take the strongest blows) were double-layered for Roman armors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All meanings of gang do involve a strong group, however, and if "nobody knows" well then that shoots that right down.
A lesbian will have a much smaller dating pool than the average person, doubly so in grade-school, and if "nobody knows" they're probably not dating their classmates either.
If anything, the shirt invokes the image of some girl that is tired of guys trying to ask her out, but is either in a relationship outside of school (and so probably unavailable) or not really that interested in relationships at the moment. In short, a reserved loner: the exact opposite of what they're claiming.
Also, frankly, banning anything controversial at all would ban things like evolution. I believe that kind of catering just allows the most extreme and belligerent to redefine what the center is again and again. If something like this is a significant distraction to someone, I'd say they need more exposure to this kind of thing to function in the world.
Yes, lesbians exist, and no, they're not always obvious. If someone can't deal with that, there's a problem, but it isn't the shirt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I can only speak for myself on this one, but without the video, I have to admit I probably would've had trouble believing that she struck first. It wouldn't be anything sexist in my case, just a "come on, she can't really be that stupid, can she?"
Starting to like the new host, though. Keeping it real. I'd want no part in that mess & she was asking for it when she hit him. (imo, hitting someone=consenting to be hit) Also, if you watch, the guy's response to every attacker was proportional to them & ended as soon as they stopped fighting. (& in a brawl, that's not that easy to manage)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
States that completely ban underage marriage: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Michigan, Washington, Virginia, and New Hampshire.
States with the highest rate of child marriage: Nevada(0.671%), Idaho (0.338%), Arkansas (0.295%), Kentucky (0.262%), Oklahoma (0.229%), Wyoming (0.227%), Utah (0.208%), Alabama (0.195%), West Virginia (0.193%), Mississippi (0.182%)
Anyone else notice a pattern?
The GOP is projecting when they call others "pedophiles".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ben Chesterman setting aside that there are different styles and degrees of socialism and I'm not sure how socialist Australia is, there's a serious problem with that analysis.
The US, for example, has moved further and further away from socialism after the New Deal, and since the 1970s our earnings have flat-lined despite ever increasing productivity. Meanwhile, other, much more socialist countries have seen their incomes go up during the same time, so the idea that socialism=low wages and crushed small businesses doesn't seem to fit the data.
In reality, it's most likely the rise of giant conglomerates dominating the market and free trade deals that have seen your wages fall, not socialism, as (unless you're a total idiot or tool in implementing it) you need to move rather far to the extremes of socialism before wages start dropping.
As one example, Walmart entering an area nearly always drives out small businesses and depresses wages. On the manufacturing end, a closer proximity to it means you're likely hit harder by outsourcing to poor Asian countries than the US due to presumably lower shipping costs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We really need to stop calling them centrists at all and bring up by any definition outside of the current climate in DC, that Bernie is what centrism looks like.
His platform is supported by most of the population, is considered moderate by most of the developed world, and is in the middle of nearly every spectrum of political thought.
On ecnomics, he's about halfway between free market capitalism, and pure communism (both of which fail spectacularly).
On war, he's neither a total pacifist, nor a hawk/imperialist.
On civil rights, again, moderate as he doesn't support special rights/restrictions for any group.
On scope of government, he neither wants an important nor tyrannical one.
Etc.
Bernie is what a real centrist looks like without the filter of the Overton window redefining the political spectrum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lunarcide I normally don't like citing Huffpost as their reliability varies, but this one is solid and actually goes into the details of the studies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/myths-about-transition-regrets_b_6160626.html
"the higher mortality rates are in comparison with the general populace (and not other transgender people who have not received treatment) and only apply to people who transitioned before 1989"
(also, it's no wonder if the rates of suicide are higher in trans people with the strain of rampant discrimination, and insanely high rates of being sexually assaulted)
Sorry, but GID (Gender Identity Disorder) =\= psychosis. There's only one case I could find of pimozide being used to treat feelings of gender dysphoria, and that was a 20yr old case of "doubtful gender dysphoria" (as in the psychiatrists were unable to actually make the diagnosis). 1 case of what is most likely psychosis manifesting as wanting to change their physical body (but not conclusively meeting the other diagnostic criteria for GID) does not outweigh a mountain of evidence showing anti-psychotic drugs to be ineffective at treating ACTUAL GID. That's basic scientific rigor, and trying to proscribe pimozide anyway when "As it has severe side effects, it is considered a drug of last resort," (including multiple potentially fatal ones + being "strongly suspected" to be "carcinogenic in humans") would be completely unethical.
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Pimozide
Not only that, but if it was just psychosis, it wouldn't show up on brain scans as being more like the person had the brain of the opposite sex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snowblow1984 that's pretty clearly the intent, though idk how successful vs harmful it will be, hence trying to see if anyone can think of a comparable example of a delivery method being banned we might be able to make some predictions based off of.
I mean, some dumbass is gonna fuck themselves up rolling chewing tobacco and inhaling the glass in that, and cigars aren't really healthier when used regularly (especially if the additives aren't banned), AND people might end up with more toxic cigarettes with more additives if they're not in the legal market, etc, but I can't judge the likelihood of these problems vs people just switching delivery methods.
Does anyone have, for example, any examples of only certain forms of alcohol being banned? Hard to judge if it's just based on concentration, but that may be the closest parallel we can find.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bongo155 if you're referring to the OP, I think the point is that it is no longer a useful term, not that the ideas were bad. Technically speaking, feminism is about seeking equal treatment for women. A racist could claim to be a feminist and not be lying. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, explicitly excludes all forms of bigotry in its definition, carries less baggage (linguistically and otherwise), and doesn't put all the other oppressed minorities behind a label that's about getting equal rights for just one.
I won't begrudge people the use of the term, but if there's a term that's better to describe your views/goals than "feminism" in every way, why use it?
If I say "I'm a feminist" there's ambiguity there? Am I for equal rights for everyone? Am I a TERF? Am I a racist? Am I a mysandrist claiming to be a feminist? You don't know from just that term; you need clarification.
If I say "I'm an egalitarian" there is no ambiguity there. Everyone knows what I mean and it gets real hard to agrue with that stance because I'm claiming to, categorically, oppose double standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well take this hypothetical: someone goes into debt to go to college because that's what they were taught to do and the economy looked good.
Then the economy crashes, and they're left with a degree, and are told that their unpaid internships don't count as work experience because they weren't paid for it.
Then they go into trying to get as much low paying work as they can because with their crippling debt they have no choice, but have to deal with retired people REentering the workforce in what should be entry level jobs because their retirements were crushed in the recession.
Of course, struggling just to get by with a job shortage and lower wages thanks to minimum wage not keeping pace with inflation (much less cost of living), many are unable to retrain and know that when/if the job market does pick up, they'll be skipped over for fresh college grads.
Even if they can retrain, they can't afford to go back to college, and the comming wave of automation is likely to just leave them with another expensive piece of paper that won't help them in the future.
Result: economic stagnation, people cohabiting with friends just to make ends meet because rent is WAY too damn high, and being unable to build a family or future.
Oh, and you get blamed for the state of affairs dispite the crash that started all this happening before you could even vote.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richsackett3423 the only other candidate with a chance in hell of both winning the nomination and the general is Warren (aka Obama 2.0) and we already saw what a president that was a lot of progressive talk with no conviction did to the political discourse, shifting the Overton Window so far to the right that it paved the way for a protofascist. (& btw, one of the last things Obama did in his term, after Trump's election, was to quitely increase executive power which he never used, instead leaving it as a housewarming gift for Trump)
By all means, if you want Warren to replace Trump's incompetent protofascism, get nothing significant accomplished, only to be followed by a full-blown fascist (the timing of which, btw, will make us miss the deadline to avert climate catastrophe), go ahead; double down on the blue no matter who strategy that brought us to Hillary vs Trump in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
. . .
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone."
-Frank Wilhoit
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
danHooligan the problem isn't that non-violent protest doesn't work. The problem is we have a complacent and callous older generation and most people of all generations have forgotten the fundamental goals of non-violent protest, merely taking a cargo-cult approach to it.
Taking your standing rock example, there was this emphasis on the protests being peaceful (which while nice, isn't enough on its own to engage sympathy, as most people haven't been part of an extended peaceful protest) and a bunch of people praying (which doesn't create that much sympathy as it's a strange religion to most people).
If you understand that it's an appeal to sympathy, you focus on the most graphic examples of brutality (such as the lady who got her arm nearly blown off and the people with hypothermia from the water-cannons used in freezing conditions) and blast them everywhere, making it as viscerally real for as many people as possible. Then, you use such things to pin anyone to the wall who wants to delegitimize your protesters and show how they are defending the monsters doing such things.
This pushes more people to the position of "something must change or else " which is what you want. If you gather enough support of that nature (rather than "oh, they're protesting peacefully? that's nice") then either you can get a capitulation from the ruling class or then escalate.
Escalating before you have that level of support is so common and such a surefire way to end up crushed into irrelevance that you hardly ever get a footnote in history unless someone comes along after you and succeeds where you failed because you went off half-cocked. People don't want to be part of either a crushed rebellion or one that turns extremist and becomes what they fought against, so you tend to not only have enough support if you start with violence, but you tend to loose it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neutraltral8757 yup "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's the "official" reason, yes, and it is generally better to assume incompetence. Unfortunately it just doesn't fit the string of events, the timing, the specific policies they've made, or consistently who they've allowed through the system.
It also doesn't fit that there has been NO boycott of a product or company because of showing up on a truly hate-filled video (because people know it's a fallible bot and can chock it up to the ad being targeted at THEM, not the content) and there were already pretty effective safeguards that greatly limited that before.
Also, the "issue" of occasionally running into a misplaced ad isn't a new thing at all, but suddenly it was a problem, and with companies you wouldn't expect to be super conscious about their image. For example, Walmart was one of the early boycotters, but they're not really known for being super conscious about ethical behavior. They are, however, well known for liking trade deals, and when the TPP ran into significant problems and a lot of the electorate (on BOTH "sides") in the US wouldn't quiet down about their outrage at the corporate establishment, we got this boycott that started with advertisers and some 2-bit tabloid hit-pieces no one cared about, quickly followed by the corporate media (which is hemorrhaging viewers, due to a justifiable lack of public confidence).
The huge conglomerates http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/ that control them then realized their success with this and are broadening their attacks to include the competition for their other shows.
You're right that this started with news media, but it's not about actual fake news, but that independent news isn't influenced by direct ad dollars like TV stations are and so doesn't tow the established corporate narrative.
Keep in mind that one of the "news" channels on TV (which YouTube started pushing just a few months after the crackdown on independent media) has been consistently found to have their viewers be less informed than those who watch no news in all and HAS has had consumers boycott companies that advertise with them due to offensive content in their overt propaganda, so the idea that YouTube is trying to actually be responsible about tone and accuracy doesn't fit their actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is in no way a "both sides" problem.
"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 GOP official party platform 2012
"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"
Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. . . 2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. . . 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. . . 6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. . . 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.
4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. . . 7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. 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. . . 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.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, . . Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People."
-Umberto Eco: the 14 characteristics or Ur-Fascism (basically the only damn thing he ever talks about because he's a single-issue pundit, and that issue is being pro-fascism)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LonerWeirdo yeah, for home defense, baseball bats (or equivalent stick) or a sword or something generally is the way to go, imo. Statistically, someone in the house is more likely to die to the gun than be saved by it, so while there are reasons for gun ownership, home defense is a poor one.
Also, all that talk about the distance within which someone with a knife has the advantage is basically all the distances in which a home confrontation will happen, and since you're defending with a home-field advantage, you get to determine the distance the fight happens at.
Also, it's really hard to beat the threat neutralization of severing the forearm holding the weapon. Even if you don't get through both bones, if the tendons/muscles are severed it can't pull a trigger or even hold anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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."
-topical excerpt from Umberto Eco's 14 characteristics of Ur-fascism
Seem familiar?
That's because he's not just another corporate talking head.
He's a fascist propagandist. (See also the Nazi great replacement conspiracy theory he's repeatedly pushed)
CNN & MSNBC are full of corporate talking heads. That's still bad, but there is a difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why was the war on drugs started? To lock up voters who would be likely to vote dem, taking away their voting rights, as well as the community leaders of left-leaning groups and minority communities.
Who profits from it today?
A wide range of companies who would have to compete with it from big-pharma, to alcohol & tobacco, to those making paper from wood pulp, to cotton growers, etc. Also, there's the police and prison industrial complex which profit even more dirrectly (and Faux News which profits very indirrectly by the fact that the Republican Party we know and hate being only able to exist in the form it does by the voter disenfranchisement the war on drugs facilitates).
Just to add shit icing to the garage cake, the police departments use the war on drugs to violate protections from unreasonable search and seizure ("I think I smell pot. I'm gonna have to search ___"), excuse their unconstitutional "civil asset forfeiture" (the profits of which they keep and buy all sorts of goodies for themselves with), have an easy thing to plant on people to arrest them for, and justify their militarized equipment (because without the gangs the war on drugs fuels, there's little excuse for it).
Welcome to the war on drugs. Leave your freedoms, constitution, and sence of morality at the door.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jolly Cocks Most of congress voted to GIVE weapons to Saudi Arabia who armed Al Qaida with those weapons.
Most of congress is legally guilty of treason on that alone, despite our extremely narrow definition of treason.
Hell, this story is about politicians using their government positions to sell out US interests for personal gain, so is treason in spirit, even if it skirts the legal definition.
Trump's a traitor, but so is Hillary, Obama, Bush, Bill, Bush Sr., Regan, (hell, probably every president back to and including Nixon) and most of the people through congress under their presidencies.
He's a walking disaster, but I haven't seen any evidence of him being more of a traitor than is normal at this point, so can you be more specific if you disagree? (Preferably with a legitimate citation)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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 including, and perhaps especially, to Ms "Jewish Space Lasers" herself)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Related side point: almost the entire world has refused to officially recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea as legitimately becoming Russian territory.
That's very telling of what the world's response to the liberation of Crimea would be.
And yes, ALL captured territory should be retaken. Ukraine appears committed to this because they understand that appeasement only emboldens future fascist aggression and facilitates genocide.
Until Russia is shown, by force of arms, that their imperialist ambitions will not gain them anything, it will continue and escalate.
Were it not for the nukes in play, the most moral position would be for the world to come together and remove Putin and his government and do a take 2 on Nuremberg.
Total removal of ALL Russian forces from Ukraine is the bare minimum necessary to achieve peace in western Europe (not counting, of course, whatever happens internally within Russia in the fallout...which could range from a quick coup to bloody balkanization, but that's something we don't really have much influence on)
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
-judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
War is an evil, but the guilt for it lies with the aggressor. Coexistence is only possible when either all parties desire it, or those that do are able to force those who do not to accept it "or else". We must never loose sight of the reality that being pro-peace and being pacifistic are not the same thing and often are in direct opposition.
1
-
1
-
@damonpearson2448 technically said companies would be better described as syndicalism than true socalism (and already Germany comes close with workers having control of half the boards of large companies) though as some categorize that as a form of socialism I may be splitting hairs there.
I have to disagree that dirrect democracy, anarchism, or true socialism are viable to run an entire society with but, while I do believe that the market forces of capitalism are a beast that can be reined in and put to work alongside more socialist systems, I do agree that capitalism (as typically conceived of) is insanely unjust.
Hell, I don't even describe myself as a capitalist since, even though that's at least partially true, the extent of the many and complicated changes I think are needed would make it largely unrecognizable (and the fact that I don't seek to put capital in control of the economy, but simply make it an intermediary between the economy and the society designing the rules its economy will run on)
I can't lay out exactly what I think needs done (that would be a thesis unto itself), nor do I find saying "I advocate a socalist-leaning mixed market economy" an entirely adequate description (as it's super broad), but as you seem reasonable, I am willing to answer questions if there's anything you'd like to know that you can narrow down to something very specific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because we're not dealing with conservatives anymore.
"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"
Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can we please drop the taxation=theft fallacy.
Not only are taxes the dues you pay for the upkeep of a society you choose to live in, but they are what creates the near universal demand for the thing we call money which gives it value in the first place (even when the currency was litteral gold & silver coins).
The entire belief that taxes are theft goes back to a long debunked myth that currency was created to facilitate trade in tribal barter economies.
Not only has no-one ever been able to find evidence of such a pre-money, barter economy (everyone just used abstract, loose notions of credit), but we can trace the invention of currency back to the creation of standing armies. Since soldiers have nothing physical to show for their work, have no dirrect customer to demand payment from, and their job is high risk, there's no way they could recieve goods on credit. Governments created these tokens called coins to hand out to their solders as a representation of the debt society owed their protectors, and demanded them back from the general population as proof that their debts to said protectors had been paid, dirrectly or indirectly.
It has become much more complicated, since then, with many more types of public servants being paid and more complex institutions in the middle of the process, but fundamentally, money is debt, and taxes are the end step of how that debt is registered as paid.
Without that cycle, currency looses it's fundamental value, which is why a lot of the alternative currencies popping up follow the patterns of speculative bubbles rather than real stable currencies (because they're not).
If we, as a society, decide that we should pay doctors to protect us from disease like we pay soldiers to protect us from human threats, the taxes that fund that are not remotely theft.
Until you are banned from leaving the country, none of this is compulsory, but, ironically, benefiting from the system and not paying your debts/taxes when the bill comes around would actually be theft.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MsLuath meat is a LOT more expensive than grains. I don't eat much meat at all and usually get it really cheap, and still a pretty sizeable portion of my food budget is meat.
Also, if you look closely, you'll notice different grain foods are in different categories, further skewing the numbers. (Note: rice flour, bread, and pasta are not all in the same category)
It's not the wisest distribution, but that goes for most Americans, and with many people on SNAP being in food deserts, their options aren't always great either, so that changes the averages too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oldones59 no, there isn't.
Full-stop.
Trump's just making it harder for them to hide that reality, but it's been there for all to see for decades!
“You want to know what this was really all about? 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.” -John Ehrlichman, President Richard Nixon’s domestic policy chief
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*, n*, n*." By 1968 you can't say "n*"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."
-Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater 8 July 1981 advisor of 40th U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the campaign manager for 41st U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rubbles2206 the simple fact of the matter is that baseload power only makes sense as a concept when paired with peaking plants, which (with the exception of the potential of hydroelectric being used in that capacity) are all fossil fuel plants. Since peaking plants need to be phased out, baseload power will be an obsolete idea.
No matter what we choose to go with (solar, wind, nuclear, or some combination thereof) the power generation over time will not match power usage over time, so we will need grid storage in one form or another.
Sure, I have tech that I am most optimistic about implementation of, but the specifics of that are irrelevant for this conversation.
Also, none of them are used in mass scale right now because we're largely leaving peaking plants as the last mode of energy generation to phase out since natural gas is the lowest emitter per kwh of all the fossil fuel forms. Agree or disagree with that strategy, it is what is being attempted, so all grid storage tech is taking a backseat when it comes to implementation.
Now do you actually want to defend the idea of baseload power generation, or do you want to admit it was just a buzzword you never really questioned before?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WhatsY0UTUB3 that one appears to be less that they lost thrust and more that they lost use of some control surfaces and breaks. Still, no fatalities, few injuries, only a couple serious injuries, and the plane was able to be reused.
"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. Any landing where you can also reuse the plane is a great landing."
Compare also Ural Flight 178, another airbus. Didn't loose power (just birdstikes to both engines): landed in a cornfield (rather than runway like 236) with zero serious injuries.
If it's just thrust gone, you're fine (especially if you still have one working engine). It's if the power goes out that you should start to worry. Commercial airliners have pretty low stall speeds, for fuel economy, to make landings softer, and to be able to land on less runway without the need for arrester cables or lots of heavy landing gear to apply more breaking force.
As long as there's hydrolics to the control surfaces and flat ground to land on within gliding distance, you're mostly just looking at possible scrapes and broken bones, but unless something else goes wrong, 0% fatalities is still by far the most likely outcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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"
Umberto Eco's 14 Characteristics of Ur-fascism
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The right always projects, and the further right the more flagrantly.
While we're on the subject, though...
"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)
(Also, anyone else notice how far downvoted this comment is...kinda proving your point, aren't they?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SkyTech RTS While I 100% denounce the 9/11 attacks in every way (for violence, effectiveness, and # of civilian casualties, should you even treat it as a para-military action), I think you should take another look at the targets if you want to understand what they were going after.
The WTC buildings were filled with a lot of huge (and often international) companies including a number of large banks, investment firms, and health insurance companies while serving of a symbol of overblown corporate capitalism and (if I'm going to be blunt about it) economic imperialism
They weren't the only targets, however, as the pentagon and the capital building were also targets (though the pentagon had little effect, and the attack on the capital building was thwarted by passengers)
Again, the terrorists were scum, but these weren't attacks aiming to rack up a civilian death count like we see with bus bombings (for example). They were specifically targeted attacks in a way that the normally indiscriminate violence of normal terrorism is not. Simply put, Osama and the Saudis that planned it were looking to strike right at those that pull the strings in the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Largely solid analysis but you are wrong about the shifting balance of power. Russia is a great power in decline. Every year its military becomes more outdated and poorly maintained. Meanwhile its economy is reliant on a natural resource which the world (and Europe especially) is seeking to phase out entirely so every year its economic position becomes more untenable. Likewise, the domestic shifts that would be needed to transition Russia to a more advanced 21st century economy would kick the power structures the current regime relies on out from under it (as would the acceptance of diminishing from a world power to a regional power).
Putin needs to both ward off competition for his gas exports and find some highly necessary extractive industry to replace that geopolitical economic leverage and income so that he can keep buying things like computer components and other tech developed by societies educated and well off enough to not be inclined to tolerate his authoritarianism. What a better thing than highly productive farmland with reliable water in a future where climate change will increasingly strain food security?
Conversely, Ukraine is a rising economic power with increasing ability to translate that economic power into military power and increasing inclination to transition aspects of its economy (such as rail line width) to EU standards and away from Russian standards. That means that every year Ukraine's ability to resist Russian aggression was increasing. (And because of the shared language, the harder it would be to hide how much of a failure Putin's government has been for the average people of Russia).
This all, as noted, dovetails extremely tightly with the personal benefits from Russia's internal politics where between the more tangible political situation and the palingenetic ultranationalism (which makes both the Russian Irredentism and Ukrainian unwillingness to engage in appeasement because they know it will just be ceding power to an adversary who will never be satisfied nonnegotiable) Putin relies on to stay in power, Putin has walked himself into a position where he has to win ar any cost (or at least drag the conflict out indefinitely) and both Ukraine and other European powers know they gain nothing long term from making concessions to Putin's unquenchable (and for him, domestically, absolutely necessary) ambitions, which Putin has reminded them through his unwillingness to be satisfied with Crimea (as just one example).
Put together, this creates a situation where peace would ultimately require or result in Putin's removal from power (and considering all of his crimes both internationally and domestically that would probably number his days even if he would be willing to quietly retire in humility, which I doubt) which means Putin has trapped himself in a no-win situation from which noone can free him.
This means that we should expect this conflict to continue until those in Russia find the war more costly than what it would take to remove him from power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
”Never believe that [they] 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. [They] 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 true of all fascists (edited to try and keep YouTube from suspiciously censoring it)
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response." (note; that makes it about as dangerous, in terms of lethality of a single dose, as sugar)
Even if you believed that was an extreme outlier, that makes it far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and we don't require prescriptions for those either.
On top of that, you can't just say "well something is harmful, so we're going to make it illegal" but (even setting aside the argument that a person should have the right to put whatever they want into their body) you have to both compare the harm done in penalties to the harm caused by the substance (arresting people for it causes far more harm than the thing itself, even ignoring the black market sales funding organized crime) as well as the effectiveness at curtailing use (which drug prohibition fails spectacularly at).
Further, even for medicines, the prescription model doesn't make sense as the dosage doesn't need to be tightly controlled at all and people are largely able to self medicate with it more safely than just about any OTC medication, so even in the medical sense that doesn't really fit well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I called you a Nazi apologist because that's exactly what you've been doing. You straw-maned Seronemo__ who was talking about extremists, when you brought it to the mainstream right. I exposed the implied false equivalence (a logical fallacy often used in propaganda) in your comment and brought the discussion back to measuring the actions of extremists who might be presumed to align with the rhetoric of the left or right and radicalized in part by the rhetoric (a subject brought up in the video).
You then, as I mentioned, not only straw-maned me and continued the false equivalency, but claimed I "refuse to admit the toxicity of the mainstream left" even though I explicitly cited the existence of left-wing terrorism.
Now you're trying to erase all that, claim the decades of racial dog-whistling from the right doesn't mean they have any culpability for the Nazi violence, but try to pin antifa's actions to the left and me (even though I've explicitly said I don't agree with them, and refuse to be baited into defending them). Even if you're not "elevating the Nazis" that means you're trying to drag down the entire left and paint the mainstream left as toxically radicalizing and to be avoided, which would leave them virtually unopposed as the right refuses (or is unable) to reign them in.
That is Nazi apologetics. You are pushing Nazi propaganda, and frankly, your insistence on holding to that means that you're indistinguishable from a Nazi trying to pretend to be a moderate.
Don't like how you look to others, change how you, but as I've sufficiently proven how dishonest you are I'm done with a possible Nazi.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tracy Johnson I didn't respond to your link about Rand on healthcare because Obamacare is a right-wing plan, is largely liked by the health insurance industry, and I already said that I don't care what his words are on issues. Sorry, thought that was obvious enough to not need to explicitly say.
You're on a channel that constantly attacks the dems and I already complained about the dems working with the GOP on corrupt bills, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing them up is. We obviously are both critical of them and see their true colors. However, while the defense bill you brought up does show the dems true colors, it doesn't show Rand's since they could count on dem votes from the other side of the other side of the 2-faced party, and (by your own admission) the vote wasn't that close and they won anyway.
Since the votes aren't a real mystery as the amount of talking behind closed doors that can just as easily just mean that they didn't have to call him in (afterall, it doesn't help to have your controlled opposition break their act any more than necessary).
That's why I said it needs to be significant, close, and a loosing vote for them. The act would be expected to continue uninterrupted if any of those 3 aren't true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryan McCarthy I'm all for electric cars, but focusing on them before switching over your power grid is a bit of putting the cart before the horse, and not many places are doing good on that yet (and those that are, are mostly doing it with nuclear, though that's a different discussion).
By the time we have a greener grid for power, we should have a better idea if fuel cells, manufactured hydrocarbons (be it synthesized, or biofuel), or pure electric (through better batteries or ultra-capacitors) are the way to go.
Industry and electricity consumption are worse contributors than just driving right now.
That said, if someone wants to use electric on a mixed electric grid for their commutes, I'm not going to knock it. Getting part of that energy from a source other than fossile fuels does help, especially in areas with a high amount of alternative energy sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I mean, there is, but we're an oligharchy, so it's so minimal, full of loopholes, and hard to prove that it's effectively non-existent.
We also have anti trust laws to break up monopolies, but those are basically only invoked at the pleasure of the government, and since 99% of our politicians are bought and paid for through various forms of legalized bribery from mostly business interests, they haven't been invoked in decades dispite the rise of modern megacorps.
Our government cares about as much about democracy, the rule of law, and our constitution as one from a banana republic, and you'll have a much easier time understanding the USA if you assume our government really is that corrupt.
1
-
1
-
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 you want to understand "libertarianism" the best way is, actually, to look at it like it was a religion.
The liars on top protiting from it, the very dangerous fundamentalists, the "moderates" who are full of contradictions because they simply haven't given it enough thought, the turning a blind eye to atrocities (past and current, typically with a no-true-Scotsman fallacy), the rejection of facts and logic that don't fit within their current worldview, the equating of (what at first glance are) arbitrary things with virtue, the liberation through hierarchy, the intangible and grand entity that one can gain salvation through submission to (the invisible hand of the "free market"), the constant contradictions (both internal and with reality) that are obvious to everyone else, the projection onto others ("you worship the state"), etc, etc
If you adopt the lense that it's a religion built around economics everything falls into place (except how so many Christians fail to see the parallels with their golden calf story warning them not to make false gods to worship. Just because you haven't made an idol, doesn't mean you haven't done so.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joe Ciliberto thank you for the sentiment. It's nice to hear when most of what we seem to get is opposition and millenial-bashing when we try to take up the fight. Any ally still willing to stand with us in their later years is still very welcome (Bernie would have never gotten the support he did if that wasn't true).
Sadly, though, I think too many people in the boomer generation and older aren't strong enough to turn an objective eye to the failures of their generation like you have. I'd imagine it's quite difficult to face that one has become exactly what they fought against in the youth they take pride in when they look back at their lives for the real achievements of their generation. That's all the more reason, though, to value the ones who can face that.
Anything you can do to get people of your generation to stop hating us, or treating us like little kids, would be greatly appreciated, because without that baseline level of respect, it's impossible to have a real conversation with any of them. Even when I develop a good amount respect from a boomer on a job, I still hear a whole bunch of generational bashing right to my face with the only difference being that it's clear they're not counting me as part of that group.
It's like a low-key version of "you're a very well-spoken black man" as just a constant din in my day-to-day life, and yeah, it sucks comming from people with no awareness of their own generation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chander S it's funny because most people don't know that the road system amounts to socialism. You're wrong about healthcare though. Single-payer systems provide better outcomes at lower cost than our system. That's just objective fact.
It's an industry with inelastic demand which benefits the whole of society for everyone to have access to and is arguably infrastructure. That's exactly the kind of thing that tends to do better when run by the government. (Also, where we have inelastic demand, we would expect to see exponentially increasing costs, which is exactly what we see for healthcare)
The insurance part is the worst as, unlike other types of insurance, there's little incentives they can create for behavior change that are more significant than risks to one's health, and there're no real efficiency gains to be made.
That means the only ways the health insurance "industy" can look to to seriously increase profits are making people think they are getting better coverage than they are, arbitrary denying coverage based on arcane rationalizations, flat out denying the chronically ill coverage/making it prohibitively expensive (which thankfully the ACA greatly cut back), and charging more to let the rich cut in line over those with greater need for immediate treatment.
None of those are good for consumers as a whole. We're much better off just pooling money through taxes and paying for it that way as the government doesn't need to make a profit.
To top it off, we're only talking about socializing health insurance while leaving the rest of the healthcare industry very privatized, which is hardly even an extreme position, especially in light of superior systems out there doing just that. You could go much further and still have a healthcare industy that still had a lot of capitalism in the mix.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
”Never believe that [they] 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. [They] 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 true of all fascists (edited to try and keep YouTube from suspiciously censoring it)
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
. . .
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence."
-Frank Wilhoit
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everyone should watch CPG Grey's videos on the electoral college that debunk a lot of what's mentioned here. The Electoral College: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9936C719FF689E7D
In addition, even if we were to ignore him debunking that the electoral college helps small states, there's still the ethical dilemma of weighting votes.
Imagine a different difference being used to determine who's votes count for more than residency. Should we weight votes based off ethnicity, so all races get equal representation? What about social class? There are a lot more poor people than rich. Should those in the 1% get 5 votes a piece?
See how that sounds unfair? Because it is. Even if we had tyranny of the majority (which we don't, we have a constitution), ir would still be better than tyranny of the minority. The latter is called an aristocracy.
Not only that, but it gets even worse, since if you live in a solidly red or blue state, your vote is essentially meaningless.
The electoral college was a brilliant invention for its time, when peopl would vote for their electors to send them to meet the candidates and make a choice for them, but it was a comprise from the beginning (spouted from the same debates that gave us with blacks counting for 3/5ths of a person) and was obsolete with the invention of radio when people were informed enough to be telling their electors who they wanted to be president ahead of the convention.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
michael nola every display of religion, nationalism, respect for authority (including the police), support for the troops (even when sending them off to die), kicking down to the right groups of people (including minorities and academics), etc is vitue signaling.
The talk of the wall, trade, opposition to the wars, support for the working class, etc is all empty pandering.
For more, please see: https://youtu.be/pCTllwHd5RQ
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
xrelik like the ex-hippies and many ineffective protesters, you fundamentally misunderstand the goals of protest. Setting aside the "do what we want or else" threatening protests, the goal of peaceful protest is to appeal to the sympathies of those with enough leverage (and willingness to use it) to compell those in the halls of power to bend.
Civil rights protests worked largely (though not exclusively) because they envoked enough sympathy from the demographics with power to demand their representatives to extend rights to the disenfranchised.
When the hippies protests worked, it was because their parents' generation told the politicians that the brutal treatment of their children's generation was unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the boomers as a generation are too callous, selfish, and apathetic for appeals of sympathy to reach anymore as we saw with protests of the millennial generation, so different tactics must be used.
That said, violent revolution is always costly and always very risky, so all peaceful paths need to be exhausted first (especially since chances of success go down when such options still exist)
It may come to blood, but not yet and never gleefully lest we fall into the bin of failed/subverted revolutions of the past.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nyxxie023 if you want to say that this causes confusion, though, you have to show that, and that telling kids who they are until they can get enough sense of their own identity to tell you if you're right or not is better for them.
Every other instance I can think of where identity is imposed has largely negative outcomes (if only mild ones), so I have to say the proof is on you, especially when treating prepubescent children at least somewhat androgynously has happened often throughout history.
Keep in mind, also, that not yet knowing isn't the same as being confused which is part of why we describe people questioning their sexuality as bicurious rather than sexually confused (but would describe someone who isn't straight but who thinks they are as such).
Frankly, I'd go even further and say that some early practice exploring one's identity would tend to lead to more self-aware adults, which we could use a lot more of in every gender category.
I wouldn't go as far as to say calling a child by a gendered pronoun is inherently oppressive, but would it be better if prepubescent children were typically raised without gendering them? The only reasonable answer I can come to is "very probably".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JMM33RanMA the overlap between Soviet Russia (especially, though far from exclusively under Stalin) and classic fascism is pretty extreme. Whether going by Umberto Eco's list of 14 characteristics, the more concise but harder to explain "palingenetic ultranationalism" definition (especially those today who idolize the form of totalitarian "communism" we saw back then), or the fact that the very first thing they did upon taking power was to kill people who actually cared about the stated goals and fighting for the workers (immediately rolling back workers' rights).
There are some minor differences (much like there were differences between Hitler and Strasser), but there's more in common than there is different, so (especially in light of Stalin being to the communist ideals of the revolution that ended up with him in power as what Napoleon was to the democratic ideals that put him in power) you're far from the first to say what today gets called "tankies" are just "red fascists" as, even at the most generous they are functionally equivalent to Nazbols/Strasserites.
In the end, anyone who thinks that handing over control of the economy to a totalitarian dictatorship is a step towards a moneyless, classless, stateless society because said state would just dissolve after it defeated market capitalism (because ✨magic✨) is a fool or a conman.
Consolidation of power along any axis (state, economic, religious, etc) always tends towards consolidation of power along all axis of power. Even the most well-intentioned "auth-left" or "lib-right" ideology is going, in practice of implimentation, tend toward fascism, as we have seen repeatedly across time and borders, and of course it does, because one form of power can easily be leveraged to accumulate other forms of power (perhaps the most obvious example being using money to buy influence over the government to get laws made/repealed that would end up with said person/corporation having more money...or visa-versa)
Distribution of power among the people and democratic checks on power (be it state, economic, or otherwise) are the only thing that can be trusted because it's the only way that is actively promoting mechanisms for the people to object in meaningful ways to abuses of power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RichO1701e so you're willing to support a dictator as long as they aren't as bad as another dictator? That's the logical extension of what you're saying. Shall we debate wether Hitler or Stalin was worse too, or would you like to actually support democratic government?
We can sit here and tally up estimated war crimes, human rights violations, and death tolls, and yes, if limited to 1-2 presidential terms, Hillary's long list of black marks would likely come up shorter, but that misses the bigger truth that the greater evil is the one that rigs your elections and tells you to choose between Hillary and Trump in the first place.
Btw: if Hillary had targeted black voters for disenfranchisement instead of millennials (if, for example, the "super predators" bit came out earlier and hurt her more), would we even be having this conversation?
No, people would say "well, she stole the primary from them, and then treated them with utter contempt, so of course they didn't turn out in the general" but hey, I guess millennials are just an acceptable target undeserving of real rights to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neither, his marching orders just changed.
Maher is, and has always been, a tool for the establishment dems. His job is to dirrect the anger of the left and define the left-most position of the Overton window.
In the early 2000s his job was easy, as all he had to do was get people angry at Bush and the GOP and it was expected that would get people falling in line behind the dems.
Now with the rise of the real left, he needs to balance attacking the GOP, deflecting from dem failings, seeming reasonable to some leftists to draw them into the propaganda, and shutting out ideas and ideologies the establishment can't abide by making them seem entirely radical (even if they're not).
Case in point, right now, he's trying to fight against the (true) ideas that Hillary was a terrible candidate and that she's actively doing things that harm the party.
Can you get much more of a mischaracterization than saying she's 'sitting at home like a grandma' when she's trying to at least play kingmaker for 2020?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@memoofjacoboarbenzjuanarev9724 yeah, metaphors can only stretch so far, but we really need to start using soft power to strengthen democratic institutions around the world rather than hard power to destroy them when their self-determination conflicts with US-connected business interests. I understand all international politics is just about power and national interests, but the persuit of our short term interests isn't exactly a good long-term strategy.
Trying to stay an imperial power forever will cause our collapse, and if our main objective is just to stop a world being dominated by China, we're really, really going to get a better return on our investment by helping countries strengthen their own ability to protect their self-determination than trying to control everything ourselves.
Whatever oil profits we secured have not remotely come close to being worth all the fallout from overthrowing Iran's former government. Even in a strictly self-interested perspective maintaining good relations would have been preferable to the quagmire we've dug ourselves into in the middle east....and fuck, we'd be able to align with them instead of Saudi Arabia, which means Saudi Arabia remains a poor backwater unable to fund and arm groups like Al-Qaida like they do and that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Just because things like principles and friends don't really exist in geopolitics doesn't mean constantly pursuing short-term gain at the expense of others like a psychopath isn't fucking our future over endlessly.
Seriously, the people who started this shit with Iran are all dead and we still haven't learned the lesson of "hey, maybe destroying democratic governments isn't exactly a winning long-term strategy if for no other reason than authoritarian regimes tend towards having conflicting interests that cause problems later and in the meantime they're a constant drain on political (and often other) capital."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1