Wolf @ Wolf @lemmy.today

Posts

0

Comments

203

Joined

2 mo. ago

Maybe they didn’t vote for trump, but definitely actively discouraged people from voting blue.

Again, I'm not sure where you are from but I'm sure its hard to understand what it's like to be an American right now. People criticize the Democrats because most of us who aren't Republicans (which lumps all Liberals in with Leftists) want better than the scraps we have been thrown.

Every since I was a kid and able to pay attention to politics, the Democrats have been asking us to vote for someone who is problematic, but better than the alternative. "Vote the lesser of two evils" they say, or you will be handing the country over to a monster. And every election the Dems head more and more to the right. But in the Land of the Free we have no fucking other alternatives. We either accept the shit that is forced upon us, or allow a monster to rule. So no, putting Democrats on blast for 'not being perfect' is not the same thing as discouraging people to vote.

How many times did you ask yourself if the comment you are reading might have come from and been upvoted by a bot or foreign agent? Because Americans do have to be vigilant for that. Also, it's highly likely that republicans reading such a comment would upvote it as well.

every new gop fuck up asking why democrats didn’t do anything to stop it.

You don't think that its the Democrats job to try and stop the GOP? You don't think that's what the people who voted for them want them to do? If you look at those comments chances are they are complaining about the Democrats who are actually not doing anything to try and stop it. We aren't asking that about the ones who are trying but failing.

I cannot support biden (later Harris) because they are not perfect on issue X

I wish it were as simple as 'not being perfect'. I would kill to have a party I could vote for that was 99% of the way there. Fuck I'd be happy with 70% honestly. I don't blame you for not keeping a super close eye on American politics, but Biden is one of the people directly responsible for our disgusting, ill conceived, immoral, ineffective, and harmful 'War on Drugs'. He's part of the reason violence is as high as it is. He's one of the people directly responsible for the insane incarceration rates. He helped make it legal for the cops to LITERALLY steal from Americans. "Not perfect"? Fuck off with that shit.

Harris isn't any better, as California's AG she fought the Supreme Court for YEARS to keep human beings locked up in prisons so overcrowded that even the SCOTUS ruled that it was 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' (that's actually illegal here believe it or not) Why? So she could use those prisoners as literal slave labor (We didn't get rid of Slavery entirely in the U.S., it's still ok if the Government does it). She also fought to make 'Civil Asset Forfeiture' even easier for the cops (the whole "it's legal for the cops to steal from you" thing). She's a 'Tough on Crime' right winger and always has been, despite what Fox news has to say about her. She and Biden were perfect- for each other.

As you rightly point out what passes for 'the left' in America is considered centrist in Europe, and you want us to what? Thank our lucky stars that the Democrats aren't literal fascists? Are we supposed to just accept worse and worse out of the DNC until one day we are voting for literal fascists because the alternative is a super-ultra-mega fascist?

Well, do you think it's at all likely or remotely reasonable that someone who was in favor of universal healthcare and free education would prefer a fascist dictator over a center-right Dem? It may not be possible to know for sure, but there certainly are signs.

Were these people in r/politics or on Facebook by any chance? It's not surprising that the most popular places online to discuss politics would be a prime target for bots and Russians posing as American leftists.

After Biden finally dropped out, I was advocating we try and get anyone other than Harris- someone who might actually win, on the ballot, but that is not the same as saying I would vote for Trump or not Vote.

I can 100% relate to people who didn't want to vote for Harris, I didn't want to vote for her, but our election system gives us very little choice in the matter.

How do you know they were leftists? I don't know where you are from, but it's been known that bots and foreign powers have been attempting to influence U.S. elections since at least Trumps first term, and let's be honest it's extremely likely that it has been going on for far longer than that.

Biden IS pro genocide, So is Harris, So is Trump. I don't think it's bad to point that out. Using it as a reason to vote for a Fascist instead is loony tunes, and as someone who frequents Leftist spaces I can tell you not a single person on reddit or Lemmy proposed any such nonsense who was taken seriously and wasn't' immediately down-voted into oblivion.

I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad”

No one is saying both sides are equally bad. And we keep saying this over and over, and it gets ignored. Just so were on the same page NO ONE is saying both sides equally bad.

...response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.

Ironically it's usually the opposite. Someone will make the lightest possible criticism of Liberals and the knee-jerk reaction to that is "So you think both sides are equally bad?!" That's what usually shuts the conversation down.

sometimes cave to corporate pressure

Try replacing sometimes with "usually". They may be different corps, but almost all of them are in the pocket of one corp or another.

they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base

That's putting it mildly.

I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.

Of course, and again literally no one is saying they are equally bad. You can vote for the less bad option while still hoping for meaningful change.

On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers.

It's usually weak, ineffective half-measures more designed to look progressive than actually being progressive, but sure if you compare them to literal Nazi's they are saints.

When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion.

So, just as an example when Obama was president and Dems had the majority in both houses of congress, and Republicans were shitting all over themselves proving that they would not compromise a single inch- instead of passing any type of "Medicare for all" or "Right to Healthcare" they passed the highly compromised "Affordable Care Act". Why? Contrast that fact with this statement from Obama prior to the election.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

Odd that when the Dems had "taken back" the White House and both houses of Congress the best they could do was a watered down and problematic solution that still left a lot of people without health care. It's not like compromising on that gained them a single Republican vote.

"Coincidentally" the Healthcare Industry 'donated' over $20 million to the Obama campaign, way more than even the almost $8 million they 'donated' to John McCain. Very odd indeed.

But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.

I honestly can't think of a single institution anywhere in the world more devoted to maintaining the status quo than the DNC. Not one. They aren't 'progressive' in any way. Obama didn't even come out in support of Gay Marriage until he had been president for over 3 years, and after right wing Democrat Joe Biden already had. This wasn't due to some sense of fairness or equality, it was political pressure.

If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction

By refusing to even hear about potential failings of 'liberal democrats' without engaging in 'whataboutism', it only strengthens the DNC's position as the 'good guys, fighting for reform' when the reality is they are the 'less bad guys, fighting to maintain the status quo'.

Fascists are bad. We all know they are bad. We all know they are worse than a bunch of corporate stooges who want everyone to be slaves to Capitalism, but at least you can feel good they are doing the bare minimum to address the multitudes of problems in the country.

There is a third option, and there is absolutely noting wrong with pointing out the flaws on both sides of the Two Party system and hoping for a future of 'actually good' instead of 'less bad'. Even if it is just a dream, I'd rather waste my life trying to make those dreams real than throwing my arms up and saying "This is the best we can ever hope for".

I feel like this shouldn't have to be explained, but "Both sides bad" does not equal "Both sides equally bad" or "Both sides the same"

There's not a leftist on Lemmy who wouldn't rather be patronized while being stomped on than being cussed at while being murdered.

And yes, I voted. No, it didn't help. It was moderates who didn't vote, not leftists. Leftists believe in harm reduction while advocating for harm elimination- the two goals aren't contradictory. Trump stole the election so it's all pretty much moot anyway.

By focusing on the fact that Democrats version of bad is better than the Republican version of bad, it only helps to ensure that the Democrats are the best we can hope to achieve. There is nothing wrong in wanting actual good and instead of 'least bad'.

I have three friends who do the same thing but it's funny and humorous!

New Guinea is in the center.

Any time! I love nerding out about stuff like this :) I was a huge fan of Horror films and books when I was younger, so this was like a nice nostalgic trip for me. If you end up watching it and have any thoughts I'd love to hear them.

What an amazing fucking hypocrite you are. It's not surprising, it's what liberals are good at.

You are so quick to blame the Left for your Performative Pig not winning the election, but take no responsibility whatsoever for putting that piece of shit on the ballot in the first place. Before that it was a senile old man you were convinced was going to save us. You guys are the ones blaming everyone but yourselves.

You’d rather burn the country down and have people fight the fight you want

It's you that keep on spouting the lie that Leftists are just sitting around waiting on a bunch of fucking Libs to fight for us. Literally no one has said that but you. That makes perfect sense, seeing as how the Libs haven't done jack shit other than put 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' bumper stickers on their cars and going into a booth once every 4 years so they can get the coveted "I voted" badge of honor.

It makes even more sense considering the libs done everything in their power to ensure that it's only the cops and military that actually have effective weapons to fight with. All you can do is capitulate, lick boots, and act as if inanimate objects are the problem and not the capitalist pigs you keep voting for, so of course we are just sitting around expecting you cowards to actually fight when the time comes. /s because I'm sure you need it spelled out for you.

If and when peacefully protesting inevitably fails and it comes time to defend ourselves, you can bet your ass it will be Leftists doing the fighting while the Blue losers are writing strongly worded letters to their senators and cowering in their basements.

you wouldn’t even walk to the voters booth and vote against literal nazis.

And again with the blaming everyone but yourself bullshit. FYI I and most other Leftists by an large did show up to vote for the lesser evil because unlike libs, we are willing to do harm reduction in the sort term, while still possessing the ability to look down the road and see whats coming. You guys want to take the one or two people online who didn't vote and use them to blame the entire left for your failure to get a candidate that could actually win against literal Nazis on the ballot.

So pat yourself on the back for 'doing your part' by voting for a pro slavery cop instead of Hitler 2, it sure really saved all us Lefties who were waiting for our blue saviors to help us. Oh wait, it didn't do shit.

Are you seriously unable to differentiate between someone saying that we shouldn't be so quick to take violence off the table, and "I have a plan and the means to immediately begin using violence this second?"

Violence and Non Violence are tools, you don't throw out your screwdriver when you get a hammer and you don't try hammering in a screw without trying the screwdriver first.

You can prefer to resolve things peacefully while recognizing that it likely won't work at the same time.

If someone says 'I think all people should have healthcare" do you respond with 'Go become a Doctor then!"

The far left are pussies for not taking action, and the Liberals are far worse because they are half the reason we are in this mess. Y'all want to prop up Capitalism and Corporations, this is what you get. It doesn't matter if you asked the ruling class to play nice with the power you handed them or not, it's not our fault you are so naive.

So, our conversation got me intrigued enough to actually rewatch it. Yes, Dwight is in it, I had no idea. Crazy to see him looking so young. Also staring the great Walton Goggins as a deputy sheriff and Chris Hardwick who I had totally forgotten about.

I don't think I've actually seen the 3rd movie myself. I wasn't too impressed with 'The Devils Rejects' tbh.

As far as the supernatural elements go, I could see it interpreted either way honestly. When they lower Jerry and Denise into Dr. Satan's lair, there are some what look like they could be zombies breaking them out of the coffin, before disappearing under the water, but they could also be some of the mental patients Dr.Satan was experimenting on. It seems like if they were zombies they wouldn't have halted the attack, but it really makes little sense either way.

The way I interpreted it was that Dr. Satan didn't just 'experiment' on the mental patients and victims that the Firefly family had been providing him, but on himself and Earl (his 'assistant') as well. I did a little research and some people describe them as 'Cyborg Demons' and some just use their names.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Satan was an actual human at one point at least, if his backstory can be belived. When Earl pulls off his 'gas mask' he definitely doesn't look very human, but he is supposedly Mother Firefly's husband and Tiny's father. So he was probably human at one point himself. Maybe they got their demonic appearances by being possessed, by 'cosmetic' surgery or some combination of the two.

One story has it that Rob Zombie pitched the idea for the movie to Universal without having a script, the name came from a Haunted House attraction that he had done for Universal Studios, and he just sort of made some shit up. After they Ok'd the project he went home and banged out a script. By writing this post I probably put more thought into the story than the did lol.

Another thing I learned was that after the shooting, Universal dropped the project because they were sure it would get an NC-17 rating, and it took him another a few years to find a distributor. By the time he had, a lot of the original footage had been lost so he had to do some creative editing to get a somewhat coherent film and to get an R rating. I'm not sure if the original plot made more sense or not, but I kinda doubt it :)

One other interesting bit I found was an interview with Zombie by bloody-disgusting.com

Which raises the question, of course, of whether Dr. Satan’s appearance in House of 1,000 Corpses was ever real at all. We asked Rob Zombie where he stood on an ending that seemed straightforward, but which now, after a retcon, looks like it may all have been a dream.

“I left it so that it could be whatever,” Zombie said. “Is it real? Is it probably just the girl, that Denise, after a long night of being tortured and watching all of her friends killed, maybe she just went cuckoo and was imagining all these crazy things? You know, I thought for that film it’s best just leave it as however people want to interpret it.”

I'm not sure if that was his original intention, or if that is how he views it in light of the sequels,

I kind of don’t want to watch it again in case it doesn’t hold up.

I think it holds up pretty well for what it is. I view it as an homage to the all great 'B' grade horror movies of the 70's and 80's (which often made little sense themselves) and shot like a feature length music video. It's just silly/gruesome fun.

I stand corrected. I'll have to give it a rewatch at some point. I remember thinking it was a decent flick

Thanks, I hope the same for you :)

Hello my baby, Hello my Honey, Hello my Ragtime gal

Either your reading comprehension is severely lacking, or you are just looking for a fight. Whatever your deal is I hope you get better.

It definitely gets weird towards the end and I think it's meant to be sorta ambiguous/ open to interpretation.

From what I can recall (it's been a while) and from watching the sequels, I think Otis and Co were just psycho rednecks, but I could be wrong about that.

Otis Driftwood from House of 1000 Corpses. He has no supernatural powers.

I have lived around crazy rednecks all my life (Indiana and Florida). Pretty sure I could outwit 1 crazy redneck, and with 3 Billion I could afford to finally escape this hellhole.

I think I get it, thanks for taking the time to explain.

With 10/2 there are two buckets, and 10/1 there is 1, so with 10/0 I was wrong to phrase it as there is a 'bucket with nothing in it', it should be 'there is no bucket, so you can't put anything in the bucket, even if you wanted to.' Right?

I don't understand why you can't divide by zero.

If you turn it into a word problem 10/1 could be stated as "If you have 10 things and put them in a bucket, how many things do you have in the bucket?"

10/2 becomes "If you have 10 things, and and put an equal amount of them in two different buckets, how many things are in each bucket?"

So, wouldn't 10/0 become "If you have 10 things, and don't put any of them into the bucket, how many things are in the bucket?"

I'm bad at math, go easy on me.