- 0 Posts
- 151 Comments
Yeah, lowering taxes for the rich and increasing taxes for the rich are really just two sides of the same coin! Privatisation? Nationalization? Potato potahto! Dumbest shit I’ve heard all night, and I listen to myself when I talk.
This ties into the notion of interpassivity. This is when a piece of media perform an action for you (think interactivity, but exactly the opposite). An example is the laugh track on sitcoms. Another is the series or film performing your environmental or anti-capital activism for you. Frequently the bad guy is some big polluting corp, or some evil rich guy who wants to bulldoze the community center to put his Luxury Resort there. You watch the movie, feel all rebellious and sympathetic with the main characters, and go home feeling like you’ve done something, when in fact all you’ve done is feed Disney some more money. See also movies like triangle of sadness and the glass onion or whatever.
Mark Fischer’s capitalist realism explores this and similar ideas in a much more comprehensive and eloquent manner than I ever could. Give it a read, it’s quite short!
This is the stuff I read. Not very scientific, but indicative of piss poor quality, especially given the price range. Where are you finding your stuff?
We’re talking about democrats here. They’re a firmly right wing party.
You misunderstand their incentives. They’re beholden to the billionaires, not to you.
I think you’re kind of missing the point. I was pointing out the obvious self contradiction in the Bush-Cheney era “you’re either with us or against us” war criminal rhetoric. I’ll spell it out some more.
You personally are not providing weapons to Israel, nor intelligence. Does this mean that you personally are actively aiding and abetting Palestine?
When America invaded Vietnam, Angola did not provide weapons and intelligence to Vietnam. Does that mean Angola was actively aiding and abetting Vietnam?
When America invaded Iraq, France did not provide weapons and intelligence to America. Does that mean France was aiding and abetting Iraq?
He could lose 99% of it and come out completely unscathed. He lives in a reality separate from ours. The only thing he’ll feel is a bullet through the head. Here’s hoping!
What makes you say this? All the statistics I saw (not that many, but enough to get a vibe) were pretty poor, and that’s from before he went mask-off capital owner.
He’s also not providing military support to and not sharing intelligence with Russia, so that means he’s actively and intentionally supporting Ukraine.
Forbes sometimes publishes lists of good billionaires:
They’re called the apartheid defense league for a reason
A community of adherents of a political ideology which is fringe and marginal, and at the same time responsible for Trump’s victory. Very dangerous individuals.
Infighting would imply harris is a part of the left. She’s comfortably right wing by any measure. And there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a valid political stance to take (not mine, but again, this is fine). Calling leftists disagreeing with harris leftist infighting is like calling the cold war leftist infighting.
No, the democrats will embrace transphobia the next election cycle so as to unsuccessfully court the right and alienate the left (a strategy which netted them a solid 1 out of the past three elections, which is 1 more than Jill Stein). This cycle they went after undocumented immigrants.
In general, I think making the right to vote conditional on some sort of intellectual test (which raising the voting age is, in some sense) suffers from at least three problems:
Firstly, my preference for democracy does not just stem from efficacy, but also from a moral angle. People should have a say in how their lives are run, even if they don’t satisfy someone’s criterion for intellectual eligibility.
Secondly, even from an efficacy angle there’s problems with it, and we have historical examples of this. Literacy tests have been used around the globe to effectively bar minorities from voting. E.g. black people in the United States, and indigenous peoples in Latin America. As a result, the needs of those populations were ignored, which I would consider a failure in efficacy.
And finally, literacy is highly subjective. Maybe today the government comes up with a test that you agree with (age 26 and up), but maybe a future government adjusts the test to a point where you disagree (only after retirement, after you’ve lived to see most aspects of life, and are therefore most fit to intelligently cast your vote).
Does this mean I believe in extending suffrage to five year olds? No. I believe there’s a balance to strike, and it’s not a black and white issue. But as the history of literacy tests shows, this is an area to tread incredibly carefully, and I get why people were so quick to downvote you.
Regarding the first one, it really helps to read the case South Africa filed with the ICJ. It’s only about 80 pages, but it’s filled to the brim with evidence of “super evil battle plans” as you call them. You should really inform yourself on this conflict, it’s pretty significant.
12·2 months agoIt’s a big club and you aren’t in it
So basically taking a page from the US playbook?
Yeah allowing even a single Palestinian speaker at the DNC, with vetted speech, and a promised endorsement of Kamala is really a lot to ask, what were those tankies thinking? Even the smallest step in the direction workers rights or not doing genocide was one too many for the Kamala campaign. The democrats rightly lost by pandering to billionaires and oligarchs rather than courting voters.