I'm getting old
It took me a bunch of tries, too. It's not really a "fun" game, more like a visual and interactive novel. Once I got the hang of the dice rolls being the biggest part of the game, and knowing/remembering where to seek them out, and getting used to the map, it became easy to pick up and put back down. It's amazing, but not easy to get going.
My OLED is coming in today, so hyped. Will definitely help with the commute. First off is finishing up Disco Elysium, then maybe playing Edith Finch? Anyone have any other recs? Besides Hades 1, I guess.
True, but that just isn't a maintainable party platform. There may be denial and violence in the short term, but at that point I think the Trumpian wing of the Republican party is in its death throes and is doomed.
I'm not so sure. While I don't necessarily have a positive outlook on the future of American politics, I think the Democratic party is in a really good spot at the moment. The Republican party is completely beholden to one person right now. They are in a very, very bad spot re: extremism in their party. It's essentially their party platform. We're seeing the ramifications in the House, now. Their party is in disarray and is proving they can't manage to even govern themselves. Meanwhile, Democrats are capitalizing on that disarray by consolidating around abortion access, protecting democratic institutions, and willingness to actually get things done. We can see this in the immigration reform bill that Trump nuked -- that was set to be a huge policy win for conservatives and Democrats were willing to push it through.
If Trump loses this election, where does the Republican party have to go? They can't just conjure up another personality like Trump -- I think DeSantis proved that. They've alienated their moderate voters in favor of bigotry and disruption of the institutions they grew up with and helped maintain. Either they're going to have to revert to establishment, pre-Trump conservatism or double down on his insanity, further alienating the moderate Republicans. And where would those moderates go besides the Democratic party, which, while sure, is supportive of gender-affirming care (a knock for them), at least they are still willing to uphold capitalistic, business-centric values (or in other words, socialism for me, not for thee).
If Trump wins, then the Democratic party is still gonna be around and having a field day with all the issues he causes (see: Dobbs ruling). I dunno this may be a hot take but I could see the Republican party crumbling, and Democrats splitting into left and right camps. Maybe someone can check me, because the more I think about it the more I see Republicans as a fringe extremist group and Democrats as capitalists, and then me over here thinking to myself, "How could we seize collective ownership of Amazon and Google's computers?" lol
Glad he did an episode on this. People need an accessible and digestible way of understanding the threat of Project 2025.
Yeah, neoliberals are destroying the left, but I'll take them over an authoritarian theocracy.
The top comment on this thread contains a conversation (argument) about Chomsky's view on the term "genocide," as well as his verbiage discussing Serbian-run concentration camps.
I listened to Understanding Power fairly recently and it definitely changed my outlook and broke me out of the lull of neoliberal self-satisfaction, and helped introduce me to other leftist writers. So I'm a fan of Chomsky's, but it doesn't sound like he had that good of a take on the Bosnian genocide. He seems to only reserve the word genocide for the Holocaust so as to keep its significance, and despite supporting a UN fact-finding commission that did find Serbia was running concentration camps, he refers to said camps as "refugee camps," instead, and seems to infer people had the freedom to stay or leave as they please (even if this was technically true, I doubt it was practically true).
So, not a good look for him, even though he had other viewpoints that I've been strongly influenced by.
Have you happened to read the book? He has a chapter dedicated to his decision to call it technofeudalism rather than capitalism, hypercapitalism, technocapitalism, etc. Basically he's saying profits have been decoupled from a company's value, and that it's no longer about creating a product to exchange for profit (which, in his words, are beholden to market competition) but instead about extracting rent (which is not beholden to competition -- his example is while a landowner's neighbors increase the values of their properties, the landowner's property value also increases).
Anyways he describes Amazon, Apple store, Google Play, cloud service providers, as fiefdoms that collect rent from actual producers of products (physical goods, but also applications), and don't actually produce anything, themselves, besides access to customers, while also extracting value from users of their technologies through personal information. They're effectively leasing consumer attention in the same way landowners leased their lands to workers.
It sounds pretty accurate to me, but I haven't had much time to chew on it. What's your take on that idea?
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Actually, you're not being clear, at all. The article you linked, yourself, notes that the 37 murdered political candidates were local government candidates murdered between September and May, not national candidates. Far cry from your insinuation that 37 of Claudia Sheinbaum's political opponents were murdered so she could win by the hands of the cartels.
Sorry, buy-it-for-life
I kinda like the idea of a phone that is usually small, but I can make big by unfolding it if I want to. But I do agree that the fewer moving parts, the sturdier and more BIFL. It's just that BIFL is not really attainable anyways in the current state of the phone market due to software support obsoletion.
I'd like to see a small eink phone or the tiny matchbook from Her.
"You are shredding the UN charter...with your own hands."
As he shreds the UN charter...with his own hands.
I didn't think about it as a dog whistle, but I'm sure it is. That is me being ignorant. I'm not trying to use it in that fashion. It's not right he owned slaves. Once again, my main point is that he was not completely okay with slavery, as the original person I responded to was asserting.
You're getting into his role in drafting laws, which I havent commented on because I simply don't know, off the top of my head, what is attributed to him besides much of the original Constitution. I can only guess in regards to that, and I would guess that, being a white man, he considered and heavily favored the interests of other white men in the drafting of laws, and is responsible for much of the inequity we still see today.
By the way, Nike has been accused of utilizing forced labor in the past.
I mean, I never said it was okay he had slaves. It's obviously monstrous. And yes, it was cowardly not to be public with his private opinions on the matter. My whole point is Jefferson was not completely okay with slavery, although evidently he was okay enough to own slaves (depending on your viewpoint, that make your opinion of him either better or worse), and that he didn't fuck a bunch of his slaves.
Edit: And i suppose that contradicts my Nike comparison (hence why I emphasized "softly" there). Still, I'd say Jefferson was a product of his time and place, for the worse.
Edit2: actually no, it doesn't really. My point was that a person can be uncomfortable with a thing (Nike's labor practices) and still perpetuate it because of the just vast vast acceptance during the time
I didn't say you stated them. The person above did -- the person I originally responded to. When I say "If you're going to invoke history..." I mean, "If a person is going to invoke history." Maybe I should have been clearer there.
I personally don't believe Boles sanitized Jefferson's biography. Again, I think he did a good job of outlining his life without letting him off the hook. It's cool you've been to Monticello, and that you know about Jefferson. But if a person is looking for a fair depiction of Jefferson, is that really the place to go? I mean, certainly slaves were the ones who built up that place. I've never been, so I can't say for sure that they (the curators) don't condemn Jefferson in the way that you'd like, so doesn't that point kind of undermine your argument? Hey, I've never been, so I don't know. I'd guess Monticello is just as likely or more to have sanitized Jefferson's life than Boles' book.
And sure, there were people that opposed slavery centuries before Jefferson. But I'd wager to guess they were in the minority (ie, not the prevailing notion) considering there was an entire industry revolving around the slave trade during Jefferson's time, consisting of more than just two individuals.
Edit: Sorry, this doesnt really cover your entire comment because of your edits, but yeah I think the general jist is that we disagree about the level of Jefferson's "alrightness" with slavery. I mean, yeah he's totally a hypocrite, and you could argue it makes him worse that he acknowledge slavery was wrong, but still perpetuated it. I'm hesitant to do that, because of the time and place that he lived.
I'd very very VERY softly compare it to the fact that today, we know Nike has bad labor practices. Am I going to condemn everyone I know who wears a Nike product? Probably not.
I mean, it's not defendable on any level, except that the prevailing notion of the time was that black people were inferior to whites. Obviously that doesn't make it right, and by today's standards Thomas Jefferson is a monster.
I'm not trying to defend Jefferson as being a good person, but expound upon the (what I consider) false assertion that Jefferson had no issue with slavery whatsoever (from his private letters, he held views against slavery) and that he fucked a bunch of his slaves. I agree with the point of the individual above that the US was built by white men for white men. But, as I said earlier, if you're going to invoke history in your argument, it's best to do it with some level of accuracy.
Since I recently read that John B Bole's biography on Jefferson, I figured I'd chime in. The biography tries hard to put Jefferson in his time and place, establishes him as somewhat of a renaissance man (which, again, shouldn't be praised much due to his privilege and use of slave labor on his projects), and also highlights out his hypocrisy and disappointing refusal to support anti-slavery movement publicly.
That is all true
I'm not really doing any mental gymnastics, nor am I sucking him off. I'm just pointing out that you weren't historically accurate in your comment, despite the sentiment being correct. I also happen to think that history is interesting (despite most of it being about rich white men -- lots of credit to People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn) and that its important not to always paint over it with a wide brush soaked with our own modern sense of ethics and politics.
Edit: Also, I'm literally a socialist. You could be less reductive.
Not that I don't agree with the general sentiment, or want to condone slave-owning in any way, but Thomas Jefferson only had children with one of his slaves, and from the historical record it appears to have been a consensual romantic relationship, insofar as one can have one with such a vast power difference (you cannot, really). He did oppose slavery privately, however he owned slaves, himself. Although, again from the record, it appears that they were more a part of his household, and treated (relatively) well, rather than how we typically imagine slaves in the South. Again, still not right, but compared to his contemporaries, you would call Jefferson a good owner. Still fucked up to say. A further disappointing fact is that, despite the fact that he deemed slavery reprehensible, he also deemed it to be political suicide to try to change the status quo. He brought the issue up a few times during his very long political career, but quickly abandoned the efforts. Additionally troubling is that, like many other in opposition to slavery at the time, he thought the solution was to ship black people to an island in the Caribbean so that they could form their own nation. This was not an uncommon opinion during that era -- I believe even Lincoln bought into this "solution," at one point. Also fucked up, but somehow better than the at-the-time alternative of continuing slavery.
Anyways, I don't mean to undermine your point that many of the individuals who established this country did so with the idea that black and brown people, women, and the lower-class, were less-than, and established it in such a way that made it difficult or impossible for them to participate. However, I think your specific examples aren't super accurate, and since I just read a pretty fair biography of Jefferson recently called Jefferson: Architect of American Liberty by John B Boles, I figured I would chime in. Really interesting and very much puts a great (in terms of historical stature) and flawed (in terms of our modern sense of morals) man in the context of his time and place.
Military industrial complex says hello.
Star Wars, DC, Marvel, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Jurassic whatever, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, Godzilla, Halo, Gears of War, Batman: Arkham and every other nostalgia-driven cinematic/televised/videogame franchise relies on shitgobblers. Shitgobblers just keep gobbling.