• 0 Posts
  • 85 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle



  • force@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEmoji Rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’m having a tough time trying to read that, the first part is obviously 「ミスター スパーコル!」 (“misutā supākoru!”/mister sparkle) but the second part is hard to read, I think it says 「ハワー ワリーソ!」(“hawā warīso!”) but it doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe the ハ is just missing a handakuten and it’s supposed to say “pawā”/power? But idk what the second one is supposed to be. Maybe クリーン (“kurīn”/clean)? But that’s a stretch.


  • Idk man conservatives in recent history have a pretty consistent track record of assassinations and assassination attemps on liberal and leftist politicians in the US based on their politics. Tommy Burks was outright killed by his Republican opponent less than a month before the election (Burks was one of the most conservative Democrats at the time, but he was certainly killed by a lot more conservative Republican), Clementa Pinckney (targetted in a white supremacist shooting at a primarily black church that he was the pastor of), Gabby Giffords (shot in the head by an anti-government right-wing conspiracy theory consumer).

    When Republican politicians are killed now, it’s pretty much only by personal enemies/drama that is unrelated to liberal or leftist politics, or by schizophrenic/criminally insane people who also weren’t doing it over politics. Like Linda Collins (her friend killed her after being confronted for stealing money), Mike McLelland (he was killed by a former lawyer who’s theft case he prosecuted). Hell, even Ronald Reagan was shot over an actress, not over the guy’s personal political views. Ironically, Republican John Roll was killed by the right-wing terrorist targetting Gabby Giffords, he was caught in the cross-fire. I don’t think there’s even an in-office conservative Republican politician that was assassinated by a Democratic rival this century, or even a single instance of a conservative Republican being assassinated by a liberal over politics recently.

    I want you to think of how frequently you hear of terrorist attacks which were committed in the name of white supremacy, christian nationalism, dicrimination against LGBT, or some other far-right bullshit, and then think of how frequently you hear of terrorist attacks committed in the name of progressive beliefs like, oh idk universal healthcare and better public transport. it’s gotta be at least like a 20 to 1 ratio, and that’s me being conservative with the amount of conservative attacks.



  • force@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonerule conditions
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The Red Scare happened because it threatened the American ruling class, and America wasn’t occupied by Nazis in WW2 so they didn’t have the experience of being liberated by mostly leftist rebels. Immediately after WW2, communists and socialists were seen as liberators who freed various countries from Nazi rule, even in the UK where Winston Churchill lost re-election partly due to him going all-in on anti-communism (which the people didn’t like). As a result, Europeans were a lot friendlier to communism and were more open to adopting socialist policies. The US was both the leading capitalist power AND it was very distanced/separated from the oppression and rebellion against the Nazis, so they just saw communists as a threat.




  • A lot of the time it’s about being lucky enough be able to have or form connections with rich stupid people. Those kinds are a lot more willing to throw insane amounts of money at someone/some company they vaguely know to do things they know nothing of but hear a lot about.

    Or just working at a company that’s well-known in the area and deals with clients very intimately while the product is being created.

    Sometimes charging more for the same service makes them want it more, to them it means it’s premium programming (as opposed to the off-brand wish dot com programming). But sometimes they demand disgracefully cheap yet world-class service and throw a tantrum when they can’t pay you $5 an hour for a full rebranded recreation of the Amazon web service.


  • More like a symptom of a broken broad economic system. In all forms of capitalism, it is a given that much wealth accumulates in the few. It’s a system where resources are distributed based on capital, and capital is a resource, and it’s a system where those with more capital have more voting power both economy-wise and politics-wise. There is no such thing as a capitalist economy that has even wealth distribution long-term, it was quite plainly a system created for the sole purpose of keeping those with power in power – this isn’t an exaggeration, the guys who basically created/popularized modern capitalism and are the basis for all the writings and philosophy of the “founders of capitalism” were post-french revolution aristocrats who wished to push a system where they could keep their power instead of having it taken while also not having their heads chopped off.

    Even with the best taxation capitalism can offer, there is no solution to the capitalist problem. It’s a system that requires there to be suffering underclasses and carefree upperclasses. It requires an immoral social hierarchy to exist. The systems that reduce the damage of this innately bad hierarchy while still maintaining it (welfare corporatism, for example) are incredibly unstable over the long-term and inevitably result in a populace that want to tear it down. The people who receive the most benefits from welfare & social safety in a capitalist society are often the ones that are the quickest to tear it down (them, and the elite) and guide us back to right-wing feudalism.

    Billionaires might maybe go away if we “properly” tax, but there is only so much you can do to patch up a fundamentally broken system. The countries with the most wealth equality and highest wealth taxes also happen to be countries with a ton of megacorporations and/or billionaires… Switzerland, Scandinavian countries, Finland, Germany, Australia all have the highest wealth equality while all being on the top 15 for billionaires per capita excluding extremely small nations. Plus those countries have a tendency for alt-right movements to pop up, a few even more by proportion than the US…

    TL;DR capitalism bad socialism good eat the rich





  • Yeah I was about to say. Like Scandinavia has a high standard of living, but it’s still capitalist/corporatist as fuck, still has a lot of the problems of right-wing and even far-right ideologies, and is 100% not ideal and probably not sustainable in the modern world (especially considering their welfare capitalism ended up getting people elected into office who are trying to dismantle the social protections and laws that make the countries successful in the first place). Welfare capitalism isn’t a good middle ground because it’s extremely likely to drift back towards regular old capitalism.






  • What if they decide, only those who were born with a vagina at birth, are women and we want only those to be part of our organization?

    I mean it’d be like barring someone for having only one kidney, or barring people who have an extra toe, or barring people who are a certain skin color. It’s a seemingly random thought pattern and generally makes you a dick. Discrimination based on organs/body parts is wrong. What if they decide that having a big nose makes you not a woman? What if they decide having big ears or short legs or being too tall makes you not a woman? Better yet, what if a trans woman gets a uterus transplant and now has a uterus? Is that when they change the rules to still somehow exclude trans women? Because that’s what usually happens.

    Trans women still face the discrimination that women face, many of the same problems that many women face, and identify as women, so they shouldn’t be excluded from a safe space for their group on the basis of one of their organs not being typical. When you get to the point of going out of your way to remove trans women who have already been accepted into the community, established themselves in the community, and fit in with the community, where other members of the community interacted with them like they would any other woman and viewed and accepted them as women, you’re not concerned about “women”, you’re concerned about your own personal insecurities and taking it out on others. That’s the point where you’re just trying to pick the specific criteria that excludes the group that you don’t like.

    Plus many cis women have no uterus, some weren’t even born with a uterus, so you’re excluding a large portion of the people you’re claiming to provide a safe space for.