Trump got rid of veteran benefits and cut food boxes for seniors.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Sure, everyone hates oligarchs. But oligarchs are up there and out of reach, and they are strong enough to retaliate. Instead, you also got these minorities, they're right here in the punching distance and they even may not hit you back.
This is it, this is how the billionaires make Joes fight other Joes and not the rich. This is why we have the cultural war and not the class war.
-
Sure, everyone hates oligarchs. But oligarchs are up there and out of reach, and they are strong enough to retaliate. Instead, you also got these minorities, they're right here in the punching distance and they even may not hit you back.
This is it, this is how the billionaires make Joes fight other Joes and not the rich. This is why we have the cultural war and not the class war.
A real general strike could work
-
This post did not contain any content.
This supports my hypothesis that people are mostly emotional. They're angry and scared so they lash out. They're not thinking in a calm detached manner.
Somehow we need to direct all the negative emotions towards the people who actually deserve it
-
This post did not contain any content.
This can be turned around. The planet is burning and you want to fuck around and argue pronouns.
How should unity be created? By tolerating everything or by surpressing everything in public?
Both are possible. How should the choice be made which one to use?
-
This supports my hypothesis that people are mostly emotional. They're angry and scared so they lash out. They're not thinking in a calm detached manner.
Somehow we need to direct all the negative emotions towards the people who actually deserve it
France used to use pitchforks and guillotine for that.
-
This can be turned around. The planet is burning and you want to fuck around and argue pronouns.
How should unity be created? By tolerating everything or by surpressing everything in public?
Both are possible. How should the choice be made which one to use?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Nobody wants to argue about fucking pronouns except the people insisting on making it into a fucking issue. Nobody wants to argue it's okay to fuck who they want except the fuckheads saying you can't fuck who you want because I disagree.
This is a beyond garbage take.
-
This can be turned around. The planet is burning and you want to fuck around and argue pronouns.
How should unity be created? By tolerating everything or by surpressing everything in public?
Both are possible. How should the choice be made which one to use?
How should the choice be made which one to use?
Use tolerance as a social contract instead of a default "everyone is tolerated" type. If you don't tolerate someone else in society then you are no longer tolerated. Seems simple to me.
Now you might say, but the people that want to be called a certain pronoun aren't tolerating the hatred of another group that wants to address them "however they see fit". Well that 2nd group isn't tolerating the first group. The first group was just living and the second group started the intolerance. Also, if you use hatred to justify why you should be tolerated then you lost the fight.
Hope that clears it up for you.
-
Sure, everyone hates oligarchs. But oligarchs are up there and out of reach, and they are strong enough to retaliate. Instead, you also got these minorities, they're right here in the punching distance and they even may not hit you back.
This is it, this is how the billionaires make Joes fight other Joes and not the rich. This is why we have the cultural war and not the class war.
A united public could easily oust the oligarchs and put them where they belong (the guillotines). But that requires large-scale public co-operation and putting aside differences, something the American public is wholly incapable of. I don't think it would be that hard if that was required in Europe.
-
This supports my hypothesis that people are mostly emotional. They're angry and scared so they lash out. They're not thinking in a calm detached manner.
Somehow we need to direct all the negative emotions towards the people who actually deserve it
It's mainly an issue in the US. And Americans are not taught how to handle emotions or think critically.
-
This can be turned around. The planet is burning and you want to fuck around and argue pronouns.
How should unity be created? By tolerating everything or by surpressing everything in public?
Both are possible. How should the choice be made which one to use?
This is a shitty take
-
A united public could easily oust the oligarchs and put them where they belong (the guillotines). But that requires large-scale public co-operation and putting aside differences, something the American public is wholly incapable of. I don't think it would be that hard if that was required in Europe.
We do have oligarchs in Europe, they're just not celebrities like their American counterparts. And very few of them are the actual billionaires.
That being said, they seem to keep low profile, maybe they really did learn the hard lesson from the European history.
-
Nobody wants to argue about fucking pronouns except the people insisting on making it into a fucking issue. Nobody wants to argue it's okay to fuck who they want except the fuckheads saying you can't fuck who you want because I disagree.
This is a beyond garbage take.
except the people insisting on making it into a fucking issue
Which are enough that society is split and there is no unity to prevent the planet from burning.
It's one way to call them stupid and wait until they change their mind. I think it's better to recognize that they insist on their way with the same determination. So instead of waiting forever, we should find a way to overcome the split.
-
How should the choice be made which one to use?
Use tolerance as a social contract instead of a default "everyone is tolerated" type. If you don't tolerate someone else in society then you are no longer tolerated. Seems simple to me.
Now you might say, but the people that want to be called a certain pronoun aren't tolerating the hatred of another group that wants to address them "however they see fit". Well that 2nd group isn't tolerating the first group. The first group was just living and the second group started the intolerance. Also, if you use hatred to justify why you should be tolerated then you lost the fight.
Hope that clears it up for you.
If you don’t tolerate someone else in society then you are no longer tolerated.
You can only do that if you control society. If you don't then intolerance towards nonnormative behavior becomes also a possible strategy.
-
except the people insisting on making it into a fucking issue
Which are enough that society is split and there is no unity to prevent the planet from burning.
It's one way to call them stupid and wait until they change their mind. I think it's better to recognize that they insist on their way with the same determination. So instead of waiting forever, we should find a way to overcome the split.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]find a way to overcome the split
Good idea, I propose everybody grows the fuck up and accepts people can be different than they are without being evil. If regressives can’t tolerate the existence of LQBTQ+ comrades, the only two morally acceptable choices I see are for them to get their shit together or for the rest of the world to move on without them. I’d LOVE to see a full working class coalition, but keep in mind these aren’t differences of opinion over tax policies we’re talking here - there’s no room for compromise if the stakes are human rights.
-
This can be turned around. The planet is burning and you want to fuck around and argue pronouns.
How should unity be created? By tolerating everything or by surpressing everything in public?
Both are possible. How should the choice be made which one to use?
Intolerance is not to be tolerated.
-
It's mainly an issue in the US. And Americans are not taught how to handle emotions or think critically.
What is exactly an American issue? Because all the issues here are not exclusive to the US, they're pervasive all over Europe, and as far as I know (second hand), the rest of the world as well.
-
A united public could easily oust the oligarchs and put them where they belong (the guillotines). But that requires large-scale public co-operation and putting aside differences, something the American public is wholly incapable of. I don't think it would be that hard if that was required in Europe.
Even in Europe when things would get bad enough for the people to put aside their differences and kill the ruling class, the differences tend to re-assert themselves once the common enemy is gone. That's where things go south. Cutting heads off is like eating potato chips. You can't just stop once you've started. Eventually you're pulling crumbs out of the bottom of the bag.
If it gets bad enough for the American people to unite to kill the oppressors, the oppressors will definitely have a bad time, but you better be ready for one hell of a rough ride after.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oh, it's a different Dana White
-
What is exactly an American issue? Because all the issues here are not exclusive to the US, they're pervasive all over Europe, and as far as I know (second hand), the rest of the world as well.
Post-national wealth is the thing they're distracting us from. They're more powerful than countries. They've basically bought the worlds superpowers. The axis of power is not nations anymore but collectives of oligarchs. As it stands it's apparently the Russia, China, and America regions with billionaires toying the world like a board game.
-
Sure, everyone hates oligarchs. But oligarchs are up there and out of reach, and they are strong enough to retaliate. Instead, you also got these minorities, they're right here in the punching distance and they even may not hit you back.
This is it, this is how the billionaires make Joes fight other Joes and not the rich. This is why we have the cultural war and not the class war.
Thank you, comrade. Brillantly put.
