purahna @ purahna @lemmygrad.ml

they/them

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

320

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ah yes, because funding never comes with any strings attached.

Damage control for Friday's trans-backstabbing veto, eh?

wow British state owned media is acting on behalf of the state? craaaazy

this war fucking sucks. absolute dogshit war.

Yes it is, whataboutism is defined as when a leftist says something that a liberal doesn't like. This is exactly that.

Collective bargaining and negotiations isn't the goal, and striking also isn't the goal. The goal is to win your stated demands (or as many of them as possible), like you said. Collective bargaining is safer and involves putting less at stake but is less of an exertion of force and offers less opportunity to flex your strength as workers united. Striking is riskier and is much more devastating to fail at but garners much more public recognition and cements how necessary you are in the event you succeed. Both are choices and both should be available and used at the appropriate time.

As for the original quote I made, I think there was a little bit of a disconnect there, I agree that rail workers should be nationalized (although that doesn't mean they shouldn't also be unionized), I'm saying that the problem is that the auto workers can have their strike entertained because they're "less important" (read: the consequences of their striking are less immediate) where rail workers can't have their strike entertained, because while they're just as exploited, they're also more day-to-day mission critical.

It doesn't count as keeping up if you're passively floating along with the average, that doesn't take effort. That's just being a moderate. The thing that takes effort is to either maintain a progressive platform or to maintain a reactionary one. Regression to mean is the opposite of keeping up.

Individuals learn and change, but learning and changing is only impressive when you're doing it in the name of progress and not in the name of pandering to the most tactically expedient blend of reactionaries and progressives.

Hey, "strongly supporting gay marriage" is below the bare minimum. Same sex marriage has 71% support. Being any politician who doesn't support same sex marriage is tactical suicide. Even Trump supports same sex marriage (7 years ago!) because it'd be stupid not to. Let me know when he actually takes a stand.

The rail strike would have had major economy-wide side effects, including people in other industries being laid off and inflation being exacerbated by shortages in basic food, water, gas.

so essentially since these workers aren't as important, they're allowed to play around a little bit with a strike?

this is a great argument until you realize that 80% of the electricity generation in the united states comes from either natural gas, petroleum, or coal

I don't get this trend of finding someone identifying legitimate problems with the best available option and trying to have discussion on a discussion website and drowning them with "B-b-but everyone else is worse! If we didn't have [lesser evil] then we would surely have [greater evil]! Why do you want [greater evil]???"

He is a rapist. Yes, let's censor him. He's also a dipshit brainwormed neocon, but that sadly isn't enough to censor someone, but surely having multiple corroborated rape allegations is enough to get someone deplatformed, right?

this is the lamest reputation laundering I've ever seen

she has several hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate during a housing crisis and she owns a private jet during a climate crisis. She is directly responsible for hundreds of deaths by pathologically excessive emissions and hoarding, and she will be responsible for hundreds more. Her net worth is $740 million, if she actually cared she could slap together a canvassing campaign to get a million people registered for one percent of her net worth, or she could just buy a couple senate seats for barely any more. But she doesn't, because this is advertising that didn't cost her a cent and only took a single tweet.

Don't fall for it.

that quote still actually applies if you accommodate the fact that he didn't actually count Indians as human beings

Oh, he's definitely dangerous, he's definitely being a dumbass, and he's definitely not rational, but he can string together a sentence and often times even a paragraph. That's more than can be said for a lot of politicians, Biden included. I personally believe that if we pull another 2015, we will see another 2016.

I kind of hate to say it, but even though Trump is much more deserving of a guillotine and a shallow grave, he's far more lucid than Biden. The "world war two" thing is hardly a gaffe, I'm 25 and I say shit like that sometimes, and then the rest of the article is kind of a nothingburger when it comes to Trump's mental intactness. It's important that we base our critiques of ghouls on material reality - Trump is bad because his actions and beliefs are evil. We don't need to invent things that aren't true in order to criticize him.

Trump shouldn't be banned from the presidency because he's cognitively failing, Trump should be banned from the presidency because he should instead have an appointment with a lethal injection. Don't lump him in with innocent people who have dementia just because you don't like him and want to tack on even more negative qualities.

I'm trans. I wish Trump was cognitively declining. A senile Trump would be far less harmful of a president than the Trump I see. But if we keep infantalizing him and misrepresenting him to ourselves like this, we will have an inaccurate characterization of our enemy, it will lead to poor tactics in 2024, and we will lose.

Alright, from the very words of your own comment:

At some point, does it matter?

in direct response to my comment

Who decides what is stupid and what isn’t?

Yes, it does matter. If you want to "Give people the resources to educate themselves", you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn't good education; in order to "Give them the benefit of the doubt, once", you have to have a criteria for when they've stopped being stupid.

Exactly. So we can't just "Treat stupidity as a type of malice", because nobody can agree on what is and isn't stupidity.

they them is basically always safe! If someone specifically requests against it then don't but they/them is what I always use if I don't know or have multiple options. All I might add is that a lot of queer people get tired of being only called their AGAB's pronouns, so maybe don't exclusively use those.