Yankees really lived through Afghanistan and Iraq and learned about Vietnam and still think they are being given accurate narratives of state enemies now. I had hoped by now we might see even the most rudimentary skepticism of US media but alas.
They were not though, neither the communists nor the Japanese collaborators believed the line was a legitimate or permanent division of the country. The plan was always reunification and no Korean party accepted the terms you're talking about.
Ironically there was an independent government emerging in the wake of the collapse of Japan but the US occupation outlawed it when they came in.
I mean if you're not positive that workers will reap the benefits of it it makes sense to resist. The poster is more specific: it says to fight the fallout of automation, less pay and more work for a smaller group of people. The Luddites are a joke to a lot of people these days but they correctly identified that automation was making their jobs worse and making everyone who did them more miserable.
Given how automation has impacted other communities in this country (take a trip through coal country some time) I think it's wise to be skeptical. I'd love to live in a world where we don't have to work because it's all automated and I can go paint landscapes or whatever, but I don't think that's likely to happen.
I can't in good conscience make a worker's day worse because of something they don't control, but I understand the sentiment. I agree though that collective action is probably our best shot at seeing change.
The enshitification of all things is so frustrating. You witness perfectly useful technology being destroyed in the pursuit of like 5 dollars. I don't answer the phone unless I've told someone to call me because it's always a robot, my email inbox is full of garbage I didn't ask for so I don't check in much, now they've got robots texting me scams. I can't even pay for petrol in peace, because they make a nickel having a tiny television try to sell me an energy drink. And nothing is done because heaven forefend that anything should come in the way of an extra .02% increase in some asshole's quarterly report.
Especially considering the poster doesn't seem to have any interest in either explaining or defending what it's supposed to mean. Like, I enjoy talking about politics as much as the next person but it doesn't look like OP wants to discuss anything.
I know, I thought about bringing it up but I didn't think it would help make my point. I think the larger point (that self-described libertarians aren't all obsessed with age of consent the way that American ones are) is still valid, but it is very unfortunate that the poster example of what I'm trying to describe had Epstein as an accountant.
I think a pretty strong reaction IS warranted against defense of NATO, personally I think it's a very bad take but I'm trying to stick up for you here. I think it would be better to focus the vitriol against that disagreement than going after your label.
If it's any help I'm not sure how much awareness you have of the recent controversy that's been roiling with the folks at SJW but there have been a lot of people recently defending the specific position you are but also engaging in a pretty hostile way, especially in regards to the use of ableist/transphobic rhetoric that we do not tolerate. Nerves are a bit frayed on Hexbear writ large. I think a lot of Hexbears are reacting to hostility with carpet bombing rather than precision as a result.
Hell, until this weekend I was basically just a lurker, the recent stuff brought me out of the woodwork. I can't tell you what to do, but I think if you give Hexbear some time things will mellow out, things are just tense at the moment. I wouldn't say you should ever expect them to like you being pro-NATO but I think you're likely to get more constructive engagement generally the further out from this weekend we get.
Don't people of a Chomsky-type bent sometimes self-describe as libertarian? It's less common in the US because of how libertarians here are usually right-wingers but the libertarians=pedophiles trope is less common abroad is my understanding. I usually peg them as more anarchist types, which usually are welcome in hexbear.
Not super into this one wanting to defend NATO but I think they have a point about the pedo stuff.
I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm just pointing out that it's a bit disingenuous to frame a question about what should happen in an unresolved civil war as a question of nations and their sovereignty. It would be disingenuous to frame Russia's intervention in Ukraine as defending the independence of an entire country, I think it's a similar situation between ROC/PRC, the primary difference being the length of the dispute.
Which is relevant if we're talking about how one can consistently be anti-imperialist, I think. I agree it's a bit flippant to say stuff about 'giving up Loser Island' but I think it's important to recognize that it's more complicated than 'two independent countries fighting over the territory of one of them.'
I appreciate your openness here. I think the PRC would also prefer peaceful engagement with the longer term goal of peaceful reincorporation, the trade ties they've cultivated in spite of US hostility I think lend credence to their sincerity there. In the big picture I just don't think the region can sustain two governments that each claim sovereignty over the same areas, and given their historical cultural and economic ties I think reunification would be the outcome of a process of dialogue between them.
Is the Donbas a separate country because it declared independence from Ukraine?
EDIT: Which is actually more than Taiwan has done, the government in exile on Taiwan considers itself the rightful government of the entirety of mainland China and parts of Mongolia.
Look further up this comment chain. Momo said something I won't repeat that your mods removed, that's what I called ableist. Your mods agree with you that 'crazy' isn't a slur so they didn't remove the comment for that. It was worse.
You really don't have to come to the defense of a post your mods removed for being bad.
You didn't actually say any of my takes were wrong, you asked clarifying questions or moved from what we were talking about to another related issue that bothered you. It's truly unfortunate that you've blocked the community and can't go back to see the context, I felt like we were getting somewhere. I'm sure you had your reasons though.
I can't tell how serious you're being but I read a really good book on this subject- The History of White People
The TL;DR on that is that whiteness is a social category, not an objective observation of human beings and their differences. For most of American history, as an example, Anglo-Saxons, Dutch/Low Germans and Scandinavians were considered a superior race to the 'alpine' and 'mediterranean' races of High Germans, Spaniards, and Italians. Irish weren't Anglo-Saxon, they were Celtic and were thus considered inferior. The racism people observe when they see 'Irish need not apply' signs or slurs directed at Italians in the 1800s were because those people were not considered 'white' at the time. It's an over-simplification, but these groups needed to be incorporated into the dominant group before they would be given the treatment we generally think is normal for white people.
Which is very jarring to us, since obviously Irish and Italians and Bavarian Germans are 'white'. But it literally does vary, and the entire purpose of the category is to render people inside of it superior by virtue of belonging to it, it's a category that exists to express supremacy.
![Doubledee [comrade/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/56456c0b-a98b-4a44-9a8e-ac79273e8730.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Doubledee [comrade/them] @ Doubledee @hexbear.net Posts 0Comments 111Joined 3 yr. ago
Yeah I don't think they shouldn't be allowed, but I also believe it would be a bad idea.