before riots
- the post title
before riots
- the post title
Glad to see their talking points focus on food security rather than agricultural companies’ interests like the EU. Though I wonder if they’ll come to the sensible conclusion and cut down on the meat industry.
Latest*
It’s not even a particularly bad one, compared to Dole coups, Coca Cola assassination, and Uniroyal napalming civilians.
We can’t stop all terrorist attacks. Preparation is good, but it’s going to suck having loved ones die.
Which revolutions were inaccessible to the poor?
And honestly, yeah, revolutions like the American one where a bunch of rich people used propaganda, money, and threats to secede so they and an oligarchic “democracy” of white male land owners could pay lower taxes and privatize public land weren’t as radical or revolutionary as subsequent propaganda made them out to be.
If capitalists can’t take legally, they will take illegally.
So that’s a no? If Trump is people breaking from mainstream 2000s Republicanism, and Harris is mainstream 2000s Republicanism, then Trump and Harris must be different, right?
Anyway, more on the content: You seem to seriously underestimate how bad the USA can get. There are limits to how much you can brutalize people politely, so “brutalizing politely” also means brutalizing less.
The difference between Harris and Trump is whether or not being transgender in public carries the death penalty (project 2025 says trans = pedo and pedo = death).
The difference between Harris and Trump is whether or not people with an ectopic pregnancy will bleed to death.
The difference between Harris and Trump is whether the library has books written by feminists and Marxists or not.
The difference between Harris and Trump is whether the internet lets you access lemmy and wikipedia or whether it only gives you access to a ChatGPT-generated world of lies engineered to drive people towards fascism.
Harris means oppression, Trump means a suicidally fascist doomspiral.
Okay, so do the Republicans of the early 2000s and Democrats of 2024 overlap with Trump?
Yes, and liberalism helps justify that by focusing so heavily on individualist worth and wellbeing. Hence “opiate of the people”.
Could you explain why?
I do think liberalism carries the blame for being an opiate of the people more powerful and more closely bonded with capitalism than religion ever was. The focus on individual worth and individual freedom has made people way more amicable to being pitted against each other in a capitalist race to the bottom than even 19th/early 20th century conservatism.
Also local capitalism is awful too. Even just one town can have landlords and serfs, merchants and beggars, guildmasters and abused interns.
No, you disagree with myself and pretty much all historical usage on the definition of “right-wing”. Whether it’s the original right wing in the parliament of the first French Republic, monarchists in general, 19th century British Tories, imperialists in general, ethno-nationalists, fascists, etc.
Mussolini was fascist, but held left wing beliefs like welfare and relief for the poor and government intervention and ownership.
Welfare for the in-group is not (exclusively) left-wing. The Nazis had welfare for blonde blue-haired ‘aryans’ that produced lots of children. Also, neoliberal and conservative western governments love giving welfare to corporations and rich people. Even if your in-group is “all Romans” (in case of the ancient grain dole that Mussolini was inspired by) or “all Italians”, if the motivation for welfare is to empower the in-group to exploit the out-group, it’s right wing.
Government intervention and ownership are not (exclusively) left-wing. The original right wing - the monarchists in the French parliament - were pro-government intervention and ownership, with the government being embodied by the king. Government spending is consistently higher among Republicans than Democrats. Large ostentatious state projects with kickbacks for the in-group are bread and butter of pretty much every right wing government, from the massive Nazi government-owned holiday park Prora to the Space Launch System. Right-wing governments often forcefully nationalize projects run by the out-group, like Jewish shops in Nazi germany or Black Panther community support networks in the US.
The right wing may cloak themselves in the guise of the free market or of individual liberty or decentralization of power, or in the guise of community and centralization and rights that must be defended at the cost of freedoms. They will present themselves as underdogs and punks and outsiders or as rightful inheritors, powerful leaders, loyalists and patriots. Often they will switch narratives from topic to topic, going from underdogs fighting against the liberal elite who says you can’t say slurs anymore to patriots bemoaning the lack of solidarity of people kneeling in protest at a flag.
The one thing that unites them, the one thing that is consistent, is to exploit and oppress the out-group to benefit the in-group.
Contrast communist authoritarianism and mass murder, which were generally justified as being for the good of all mankind.
If that is the choice you make, I believe you that you feel like it is the best you can do right now. But if ‘we’ refers to people in general, then that is simply false. There are many people who gleefully make things worse and there are also many who fight with heart and soul for a better world. It is not a given that those who see clearly are depressed and too overwhelmed to act.
If you have any energy to spare, search out people irl who take climate change as seriously as you do. Communal mass action is both the most effective strategically and the most invigorating emotionally.
I’m acting under the assumption that they would have died anyway. As they do. When they decompose naturally, they release their carbon.
Okay, glad to understand that the issue is that you didn’t understand my first comment or any comment that came after it.
One last time: what I’m saying is that you bury the wood to prevent it from decomposing and releasing its carbon, as an alternative to burning it. And that as an alternate source of electricity you use something that doesn’t produce as much emissions, like solar, wind, or nuclear. And if you think burying wood is bad for any reason, then setting it on fire is bad for the same reason.
insurance crisis That’s like calling a pandemic a funeral home crisis.
The insurance rates are accurate. Florida is just becoming uninhabitable. (At least, for standard postcolonial architecture).
How about no? A saved life is just as valuable whether there are 70 million dead or 7 billion. And even if it’s just delaying the sterilization of the earth by a month that gives billions of people and quintillions of animals a bit more time.
Work-life balance is important and improves productivity, so you should be spending time with your loved ones regardless of how productive labor is. But giving up is just a waste.
If we go extinct, we had better make the last decades of humanity worth living.
If we thread the needle as a species, bottlenecking down to millions or thousands until we can weather the storm, we had better make sure that the culture that makes it through is not the capitalists that built the hardest bunkers or the fascists who massacred enough people until the survivors made it through with no skill of their own or even the liberals who adopted post-hoc constitutional principles that leave them unprepared for the next catastrophe.
And if billions survive, then every person counts. And that means every tonne of CO2 or microplastics, every species, every micrometer of ocean rise, every acre of robust circular agriculture.
There is no scenario in which we just get to lie down and take it.
You’re right that there is a definition of anarchism that nobody will meet, just like there’s a definition of feminism or capitalism or communism that nobody will meet. Those definitions are therefore useless, but that doesn’t mean anything goes.
There’s a difference between self-styled ‘anarchists’ who name themselves after oppressive systems and consciously include oppressive tools in their proposals for change and self-styled ‘anarchists’ who name themselves after systems that can help empower anarchism and that try to include as little archism in their proposals for change as possible.
The anarchist movement isn’t a static definition, it’s a vector force pulling at present-day society. Ancaps don’t pull along that vector. Non-vegan anarchocommunists do.
They say that, but there are people out there deliberately breeding humans to keep the population up so human hunting remains justified, and these wild humans do terrible damage to the environment by over-foraging.