wpb @ wpb @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

244

Joined

11 mo. ago

It's not leftist infighting if one side isn't leftist.

I don't hold Orwell in high regard, but this take seemed too inhumane and idiotic even for him. And it is, he actually never said this.

It's takes like this that lead people to conclude that Americans deserved 9/11 for what their government did in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc etc up to Iraq in the gulf war. Or that Israelis deserved October 7th for what their government did during the nakba, sabra and shatila, etc etc. Americans did not deserve 9/11, Israelis did not deserve October 7th. They are not complicit in the crimes of their rulers. Especially when you operate in a two party system where both parties are completely and utterly beholden to billionaires.

This smug denialism is what got us Trump the first time around and it's what got us Trump the second time as well. At least the guy acknowledges there's a problem (even though his solutions are designed to make it worse). The Dems piss on your leg and tell you it's raining. They dropped the ball by trying to play diet republican, and losing the election is on them.

And that's how you recognize a Russian election interfetterance bot, because it's categorically false. The genocide Drumpf is carrying out is millions times worse and very different from the special military operation in Palestine that the Biden administration really had nothing to do with if you think about it.

"man bites dog" vs "dog bites man"

We all know what the Republicans unanimously stand for. Apparently some democrats do too, and that's worth noting.

Is it because Pooh is yellow?

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/who-makes-the-most-reliable-cars-a7824554938/

https://www.carscoops.com/2025/03/almost-1-in-4-tesla-model-3s-fails-government-safety-checks/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Frequently+noted+problems+concern+the%2Cin+the+T%C3%9CV+reliability+study.

This is the stuff I read. Not very scientific, but indicative of piss poor quality, especially given the price range. Where are you finding your stuff?

We're talking about democrats here. They're a firmly right wing party.

You misunderstand their incentives. They're beholden to the billionaires, not to you.

He could lose 99% of it and come out completely unscathed. He lives in a reality separate from ours. The only thing he'll feel is a bullet through the head. Here's hoping!

What makes you say this? All the statistics I saw (not that many, but enough to get a vibe) were pretty poor, and that's from before he went mask-off capital owner.

Forbes sometimes publishes lists of good billionaires:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardjchang/2023/04/05/in-memoriam-these-billionaires-died-over-the-past-year/

They're called the apartheid defense league for a reason

A community of adherents of a political ideology which is fringe and marginal, and at the same time responsible for Trump's victory. Very dangerous individuals.

Infighting would imply harris is a part of the left. She's comfortably right wing by any measure. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's a valid political stance to take (not mine, but again, this is fine). Calling leftists disagreeing with harris leftist infighting is like calling the cold war leftist infighting.

No, the democrats will embrace transphobia the next election cycle so as to unsuccessfully court the right and alienate the left (a strategy which netted them a solid 1 out of the past three elections, which is 1 more than Jill Stein). This cycle they went after undocumented immigrants.

In general, I think making the right to vote conditional on some sort of intellectual test (which raising the voting age is, in some sense) suffers from at least three problems:

Firstly, my preference for democracy does not just stem from efficacy, but also from a moral angle. People should have a say in how their lives are run, even if they don't satisfy someone's criterion for intellectual eligibility.

Secondly, even from an efficacy angle there's problems with it, and we have historical examples of this. Literacy tests have been used around the globe to effectively bar minorities from voting. E.g. black people in the United States, and indigenous peoples in Latin America. As a result, the needs of those populations were ignored, which I would consider a failure in efficacy.

And finally, literacy is highly subjective. Maybe today the government comes up with a test that you agree with (age 26 and up), but maybe a future government adjusts the test to a point where you disagree (only after retirement, after you've lived to see most aspects of life, and are therefore most fit to intelligently cast your vote).

Does this mean I believe in extending suffrage to five year olds? No. I believe there's a balance to strike, and it's not a black and white issue. But as the history of literacy tests shows, this is an area to tread incredibly carefully, and I get why people were so quick to downvote you.

Regarding the first one, it really helps to read the case South Africa filed with the ICJ. It's only about 80 pages, but it's filled to the brim with evidence of "super evil battle plans" as you call them. You should really inform yourself on this conflict, it's pretty significant.

It's a big club and you aren't in it

So basically taking a page from the US playbook?