Maoo [none/use name] @ Maoo @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

366

Joined

2 yr. ago

Words mean nothing to liberals whenever it's convenient. Sometimes words go from having meaning to none in the same sentence.

What's your position on outdoor cats?

You called?

ACAB

Organize with socialists, make use of mutual aid. Provides an IRL version of what you're seeking here- uou are in no way alone. This is how most people live and it is by systemic design.

There's a lot of power, and value, in making local irl connections so that when you need help or just to talk to people, you'll know that you have options. Also, some options take time, so getting on top of them now will pay dividends. Examples include food stamps and subsidized housing. Finally, lefties sometimes like to help each other get better jobs.

Of course I can also suggest ways to live cheaply, but there is a hard limit under this economic system and you might already be there.

Also please feel free to DM if you want to talk about anything.

The uneven ratios in those top three are due to massive populations of second class immigrant laborers, often slave laborers.

Amazon has high turnover because their strategy is to burn through new graduates (the cheapest dev labor) before they get sick of the poor working conditions. This is identical to their warehouse employment strategy.

Oh no, the precious "economy"!

About 1/4 of Dems polled think marriage between races is a problem. Closer to 1/3 for Republicans, but I assume you'd concede that they're white supremacist.

Beyond the overt and Hollywood education-level white supremacy, there is institutional white supremacy baked onto our systems and Dems are 100% there to entrench it, as white supremacy still serves an economic function of creating marginalized subclasses.

Here's an easy example: remember the George Floyd protests? The ones against racist police violence? Where BLM and related groups around the country were demanding defunding for police and investment in communities? All of the major protests were in cities, cities run by Dem city councils. Almost none of them did anything in that direction at all, and those that did rolled it back. Now, most of those cities are pretending that defund did happen so that they can give even larger budgets to their still-racist (personally and structurally) police.

I can't think of a single Dem I've talked to about defund or BLM or even just structural racism that hasn't committed "baby's first thought about black people" errors that are largely just rationalizations they picked up from Dem politicians. To be fair, most of them have been white, but it's still embarrassing.

That's Cafe Press, good Consumer

Allegedly the original plan

War is not particularly complex, it's just not something liberals are usually willing to understand as it challenges their little mythologies (many of which you repeated here).

Relatively simple questions are unanswerable by that framework, not even approximately. Let's try some.

• Who pushes for war in the first place? Where does the impetus come from? Normal folks don't wake up and say, "yeah I'd like to destroy a country and its people 4500 miles away", and they definitely don't have the power to make war happen.
• What gains the consent of the country to support and maintain war? Why do anti-war movements, even with millions of people, fail to stop war?
• Why do the wars end? When they achieve their purpose? What purpose was that?
• Who benefits from the wars? Are they involved in the process?

Of course, the driving factors here are simply capitalism and its political lackeys, attacking from multiple angles to ensure its seat of empire will achieve the desired ends by pushing and by removing obstacles. The impetus is a series of battling foreign policy think tanks, politicians ready to support military spending, a friendly (and racist!) media apparatus, and war profiting companies paying every single one of those groups to keep the heat up for the next boondoggle. Constant vilification of established "enemies" and attempts to create new ones, usually targeted at countries that undermine the power of the global seat of capital and therefore its ability to exploit labor and resources internationally.

This is why Saudi Arabia is an "ally" while Iran is an enemy. All things the same, Americans would be just as racist towards both, care just as little for their lives, know just as little about them. But one cozies up to the hegemony of international capital and the other does not, so you are to hate the one and not the other. Scads of anti-Iranian think tanks and propaganda while the Saudis get occasional mention and can even murder journalists on US soil and get away with it. It's not actually that complex so long as you don't believe lies about American democracy, "freedom", interest in peace, liberal world order, etc.

So when we know that these are the actors and criteria, why some wars and not others? Why not big new wars every 6 months instead of several years? Well, the interests involved are part of global capital, they respond to the rate of profit and crises of capitalism, and politicians are on their side. Both the capitalists and their buddies in Congress know that war is a "stimulus" and they count it as jobs and profits and campaign donations (legalized bribery) and good press. The opportune time is whenever it can be sentimentally capitalized on, whenever they can get away with it. When it's hurting the "right people" at the time, where they might have to wait for consent to get manufactured first. When times are tough and "jobs" mean particularly more than other people's lives.

And more deeply and perniciously, capitalism forms society itself, such as the white supremacist settler culture of the United States where it is never that difficult to whip up support against another ethnicity, just requires jumping through a few different hoops depending in which capitalist party you favor. The intense gullibility and susceptibility to propaganda, in part due to schools' materials being dictated by reactionary school systems that themselves work in concert with large publishers to create verifiably false and simplistic material into history textbooks, lesson plans, etc (see: Texas' input on other states' curricula). The precarity forced on so many that they can't even consider joining an anti-war movement. The normalization of American military violence and widespread societal myths about its impact, its actual activities, its history.

I don't think any of this is complicated. It is only uncomfortable for some.

5 million dead buddy. You can't nationalism that away unless you think brown people are subhuman.

With chagrin

Lucky ducks

I haven't found one that will reasonably sell me a warranty and that has a good reputation. Warranty cost is a proxy for how likely it will be to break and is insurance against having to shell out another $1k+ over a 3 or 4 year period. System76 is the only one I'd consider and their 3-year warranty is nearly $400. Thinkpad warranties are $150 for the same level of support and $200 for the warranty where they physically fly a person to fix your computer within a couple days.

Economists aren't really in denial, they are just doing their job of giving a false sense of scientific legitimacy to the plan the ruling class will enact anyways: discipline labor, cut social spending, bail out finance when they inevitably crash.

I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading.

You have a very funny idea about the realities of war. By your logic most could never end. Wars are resolved through diplomacy or full collapse and loss. Your sociopathic ideas about what is "reasonable" devalues the lives and well-being of Ukrainians living through war.

This is liberal "moral victory" nonsense that no serious person believes.

That's lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.

Thank you for conceding my point and implicitly retracting the claim I replied to.

Brigading is when silly posts appear on my federated front page and I make fun of your bad opinions.

Im no fan of US imperialism, but you all conveniently leave out the alternative to NATO aid in Ukraine right now.

Nope it's mentioned all the time: diplomacy, peace talks, and to make that even possible, establish legitimacy by abiding by your own agreements. The undermining of all of these things has been discussed at length. They don't really need to be rehashed in our spaces for the benefit of new people that don't ask questions, though.

Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.

lol RF could take over UA any time they wanted to if they took the NATO approach of completely destroying civilian life and essential resources via bombing. Military "aid" to Ukraine just keeps Ukrainian soldiers getting killed en masse, which is characterized by Russia as their compromise version of Denazification.

As far as Im concerned, Putins expansion is really helping NATOs by giving them a justification to exist

NATO obviously requires no credible justification to exist. This doesn't matter.