|
https://twitter.com/YALiberty/status/1087439993008807937 a good cartoon?
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Defenestration posted:a good cartoon? No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Could you elaborate why? I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I'm poo poo at  and my attempt to do so would be bad and explain nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
You don't need lots of , it's just libertarian_bullshit.jpg The state is the problem, rather than say the rich?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Class conflict doesn't exist it's the gubmint that's the problem is not really "good" unless you're nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Could you elaborate why? Government power can be a source of oppression, or it can be a tool to check economic power. Assuming the government can do nothing good as should be shrunk in all cases gives the rich a free hand to oppress the poor in their own private capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
On top of pretending state power can never ever be used for good, it kinda just absolves everyone of responsibility by pretending The State is an autonomous actor. The State just on its own decided to implement Jim Crow, white people had nothing to do with that. The State decided HIV wasn't worth dealing with, not straight people. The State deprived women of the right to participate in society and politics, not dudes. The State murdered miners striking for the 8 hour day, not the owners of the mines. It's me, Mr. The State, and I loving hate human life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
it's a common libertarian argument to claim that governments are used as tools of oppression. which, yeah, they are, but they're also used as tools of liberation at times. the same us government which enforced jim crow also made it illegal. the idea is to make you think that reducing the size and power of the state is a net gain for individual liberty, when really the state is also useful at times to enforce or protect minority rights. and then there's a further fringe argument that really there should be no government at all and instead humans deal with everything via "market solutions" or radical anarchy but really if you get two or more human beings together they're going to establish rules for how to get along and whoops that's a government
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Governments are fundamentally tools of organization. Extreme libertarians and anarchists are against all organization as they view it as inherently oppressive but sometimes that organization is good and sometimes it is bad. If you have people you have politics and every group forms some sort of set of rules that they act by. Governments are just that for really huge groups of people. As an inherently human institution they are inherently flawed. Those same people look at those flaws and declare that that means government is inherently terrible and should be abolished.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Could you elaborate why? In addition to this, it's coloblind politics. It's something to be deployed when black people complain about racism, not when white people are racist, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Also the conflation of those four categories grates on me a lot because it absolutely is rich vs poor, in order for the poor to not be poor they need to take the resources of the rich, there are a finite amount of resources and they have to be redistributed in order for change to happen. With the other categories though it's generally more of a rights kind of thing and in that instance you really can just create rights out of nowhere, it can disadvantage the previously privileged group in a market sense in that they may now have greater competition in the form of newly enfranchised people but that's far more marginal than the rich/poor thing where you literally have to take every dollar you give someone from someone else. And as I think people generally view money as being fairly concrete and probably have, on some level, the understanding that money has to be taken from somewhere before you can give it to someone, suggesting that rights work exactly the same way is certainly objectionable and inherently favours the regressive side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
I do suppose it is Rich vs Poor which makes the macro wrong on at least one axis
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
It's wrong on the others as well in that the other conflicts are conflicts in the sense that the biggest obstacle to female empowerment is men, gay people straight people, black people white people etc. But it is certainly a different kind of conflict in that you don't really win by just seizing the resources of the dominant group.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Thanks. I have friends who post this poo poo in the wild because they think they're above it all and know that it's really both sides and  , but I never know how to phrase "Bullshit, you're wrong." into a factual argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
 Counter Strike voiceover: "TERRORISTS WIN"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Pomplamoose posted:
Step one: America elected a motherfucker as president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:With the other categories though it's generally more of a rights kind of thing and in that instance you really can just create rights out of nowhere, it can disadvantage the previously privileged group in a market sense in that they may now have greater competition in the form of newly enfranchised people but that's far more marginal than the rich/poor thing where you literally have to take every dollar you give someone from someone else. I agree with your overall point, but as a species we do have the ability to increase our aggregate wealth through the application of our labour, so it's not a zero sum game. At the same time, with the level of both wealth *and* income inequality being what they are, solving poverty through redistribution would be infinitely more effective than attempting to solve it through further wealth creation. And that's not even getting into the additional strain that additional wealth creation would put on an already overburdened environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
Given that I think most modern marxists (and very old ones) would be principally concerned with the worker's control over the means of production and the apportionment of the product of their labour, then that absolutely has to come by taking it from the people who currently get it, i.e the people who own it. You can get all MMT about it sure but for lasting change you gotta change how wealth is distributed once it's created which very definitely puts rich and poor in conflict with each other. Every dollar under the control of the person who created it is a dollar not under the control of a capitalist. It's pretty zero sum in that respect. Money as a marshalling force for labour can be created, sure, but value produced by labour cannot, save by labour itself. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 09:11
|
|
|
I've run into "If you even remotely question the actions of Harris as a prosecutor (let alone her work on fosta/sesta) you are a russian bot doing the work of putin!" on twitter. This election season is going to be great fun. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
Ambitious Spider posted:I've run into "If you even remotely question the actions of Harris as a prosecutor (let alone her work on fosta/sesta) you are a russian bot doing the work of putin!" on twitter. I’m all for a strong debate, and I’m glad people are focusing on substantive issues. But the fact that “#neverharris” is starting is just stupid. Sorry, but if your choice is Harris or Trump, you’ve gotta vote for her. There’s just no comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:I’m all for a strong debate, and I’m glad people are focusing on substantive issues. But the fact that “#neverharris” is starting is just stupid. Sorry, but if your choice is Harris or Trump, you’ve gotta vote for her. There’s just no comparison. Yeah, I'm so looking forward to another season of trying to beat it into people's skulls that in a first past the post election, you don't have the luxury of "voting with your heart" or whatever the gently caress. You have two viable candidates, and you've got to go with the most palatable of the two. Period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Yeah, I'm so looking forward to another season of trying to beat it into people's skulls that in a first past the post election, you don't have the luxury of "voting with your heart" or whatever the gently caress. You have two viable candidates, and you've got to go with the most palatable of the two. Period. Nope, keep electing Trump till the DNC gets the message.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Ambitious Spider posted:I've run into "If you even remotely question the actions of Harris as a prosecutor (let alone her work on fosta/sesta) you are a russian bot doing the work of putin!" on twitter. It's almost as if Russia's interference wasn't about GOP control, but instead about sowing discord. A democracy can't function if nobody trusts anyone and thinks everything is rigged. A house divided can not stand and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:I’m all for a strong debate, and I’m glad people are focusing on substantive issues. But the fact that “#neverharris” is starting is just stupid. Sorry, but if your choice is Harris or Trump, you’ve gotta vote for her. There’s just no comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:That's the point of a primary my dude. So that we can discuss who's a loving cop who cozies up to Netanyahu and how maybe that's not what we want. I’m agreeing with you? I hope we get a candidate that people want to vote for, not just a lesser evil choice. But a lot of people, including people of color, are supporting her. They presumably know something I don’t, so I’m trying very hard not to jump to conclusions a year before the first primary. There’ll be plenty of time to hear what the candidates have to say before I get a ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
believe it or not but being a minority doesn't give you perfect woke-o-vision trans women for trump and all that
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Nope, keep electing Trump till the DNC gets the message. Looking forward to the posthumous terms amendment
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
If you guillotined the rich, it wouldn't absolve the world of racism. In fact, poor whites would probably want to grab the power and be the ruling class against PoCs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:If you guillotined the rich, it wouldn't absolve the world of racism. In fact, poor whites would probably want to grab the power and be the ruling class against PoCs. guillotine all white people
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
I'm going to die if they're actually stupid enough to have Nixon-ed themselves..... Giuliani says ‘tapes’ prove Trump’s innocence, then says there are no tapes quote:“Because I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the emails, and I knew none existed,” he said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
BaronVonVaderham posted:I'm going to die if they're actually stupid enough to have Nixon-ed themselves..... It's too hot today
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Dave Grool posted:It's too hot today Oh crap! I shouldn't have said tapes!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
 Cross posting this from AusPol. It's a letter to the editor in my local very right wing paper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Gridlocked posted:
"history of humankind littered with atrocities" indeed
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:"history of humankind littered with atrocities" indeed Do you want to see THAT letter too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions." Sounds like someone hates freedom. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 09:51
|
|
|
"Michael J Ireland Berserker" Residence is also occupation, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Heaven loving forfend that you might endow a poorer culture with positivity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
I too remember how Constantine's disastrous embrace of Christianity directly caused the fall of the Roman Empire. He should have continued the Diocletian Persecution and eradicated it instead. Oh yeah, perestroika is Russian for "more diversity and inclusion."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Diverse regions, like Soviet Union and Rome. Lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:35
|
|