|
Sinema is gonna expire wealthy and surrounded by her beloved child blood donors and sex slaves, like all of our ruling class. Sumner Redstone-style. She may not be clear on what her career will look like going forward, but she has absolutely no doubts the sinecure is secure.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, main character syndrome is as good a way to explain it as anything, but so is just "she was really loving stupid." Plenty of people tried to get her to change course she just didn't want to listen ro them because listening would have meant admitting she wasn't a special flower genius and doing actual work and not going on wine cave vacations. Is the idea here that she’s gonna be super unhappy in her new do-nothing jobs or what? I mean, if I could sell out and get paid and get yelled at by many fewer people while solely associating myself with folks who think having been a senator means you’re awesome, I’d take that bag too. Why is she stupid? I mean, she’s gonna die rich, how does that make her stupid? Isn’t that the point in this country? She won the game. She made a bag and then got out. The repeated insistence that this woman is dumb is just standard goon unexamined misogyny imho.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:She's dumb because she clearly believed her actions would make her a presidential candidate and political celebrity rather than torching her own career which is what she did instead. She was already on the gravy train for life once she won her first senatorial race, yet she somehow managed to gently caress that up, which takes a kind of genius. She can't even raise money for a reelection campaign any more. I don’t think this aligns with what I know about America, where there’s no dumb, bad or wrong way to end up rich so long as you can keep it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:She didn't keep it though. That's the thing. She is actively failing to raise money for a senate race in a potential swing state. She managed to dumbfuck herself out of a revenue stream worth hundreds of millions. drat she’s just gonna have to settle for more money than 99.9% of all Americans and cushy no show board postings. If she’s living in a studio apartment running Spin classes in a couple years I guess I got it wrong, but that doesn’t comport with what I’ve observed about American politics and the ruling class. If she’s so dumb, why isn’t everyone running this grift? It’s easy enough a stupid person can do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
Would be really interested to see that same fundraising comparison with all the Trump PACs/other fundraising orgs tied to him, and see if the total has fallen as much, or if he’s just successfully hijacked the party fundraising apparatus
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yeah given how many animals Musk's company killed and the COI concerns around the committee that approved him to go forward, that's a dim view of the FDA. This creates a place for radical orgs like ALF as a necessary corrective if the institutions fail us. If we can’t use the legitimate institutions as expressions of our collective will because they are so fragile or vulnerable in the ways they so obviously are, I can’t get mad about parapolitical organizations forcing the issue. When the people whose job it is to use the institutions to derive fairer results tell us not to use those institutions, what’s the option?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:No my colleagues who do legitimate animal research which cannot currently be replaced by other methods getting firebombed is not the loving answer to regulatory capture. I can’t endorse their methods, but what’s the alternative if what we read about the way the monkeys were treated during Neurolink trials ends up meaning nothing? If the oversight is broken, then what should be done? And how much unethical suffering are we willing to allow to persist while the oversight is broken, just eternally until we’re finally back to some potential future date when oversight works again? This goes to my larger issue with things like the SC—if the only solution is to work within the decorum-approved channels, and those channels have absolutely no ability to prevent, say, a billionaire just buying off a justice publicly, well how long am I expected to stand for that poo poo? And how much respect for myself as a citizen and reverence for these institutions am I expected to maintain?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:I don't know how we restore our broken institutions and build trust again after regulatory capture. A lot of us in the biomedical field were asking the same questions about CBER after the absurd approval of aducanumab. Especially when 40+% of the population seems to actively cheer on this sort of deregulatory spiral. But the answer can't be anyone taking whatever kinds of direct action they see fit against actors they deem a legitimate target, especially as most of the time these direct action groups have no idea what they're talking about. It sounds like the most effective direct action needs to come from people inside the industry. Historically, this has been true in a lot of cases. I could see a good faith effort to meaningfully engage with and self-police helping, but it’s simply not the same as the state when it comes to effective oversight. If the answer isn’t from without, and it’s not coming from the official channels, then it has to be from within. Monkey wrenching for the sake of monkeys has a nice ring to it anyway. Otherwise people aren’t going to be content to sit around and hope it gets better, are they? If regulatory capture continues, that just radicalizes more people to causes like ALF if we see more tortured monkeys and more factory farm practices. There need to be effective, legitimate pressure valves, just from a practical and safety standpoint, because people have legitimate grievances, and if there’s no effective way to channel that into changes and actual punishment for violations, then they will channel that energy somewhere illegitimate, and radicalization efforts will be made much easier for every case exposed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:If they can effectively communicate that Trump and the GOP are intentionally allowing the border to stay “broken” or whether people think it is when they vote GOP due to the border, they could deflate GOP support on that quite a bit. 1. They are terrible communicators, and basically every Dem-affiliated migrant advocacy group is not going to carry water for a bill this lovely, so who do you see handling the messaging in a way that appeals to the people most plugged-in on immigration policy in the Dems, the vast majority of whom would be representing constituencies either opposed to or targeted by this bill? 2. Do you really think GOP voters are going to believe anything anyone says over Trump and his surrogates? Do you think these disenchanted voters are gonna vote Dem? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. This was a terrible bill on its merits and is a horrific bellwether for the desire of the Dem establishment to stand on any kind of principle no matter what. I used to joke that the Dem counteroffer to automated turrets on the border when climate refugees increase to enormous levels will be that the turrets won’t be automated, and we’ll put AmeriCorps workers in charge of manning them. Doesn’t feel like a joke as much anymore!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:TRUMP is the genocide guy. You don't get to memory hole Trump's actual actions in office, and I'm pretty sure his current statements on the crisis are along the lines of Israel not going far enough. There’s enough room for more than one genocide guy. Biden’s a genocide guy now too. It’s genocide guys all the way down, at least when it comes to our national electeds, it would seem.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I was being cheeky. And the investigators said that he was sundowning during interviews. I think that’s going to get a lot more play.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
I have a parent just starting to experience age related memory and cognitive issues, and to me it’s patently obvious Biden is going through the same—right down to videos from less than ten years ago showing a noticeably more “with-it” person, same with my Ma. But this is going to be one where a lot of people see what they want to see. I do think there’s going to be a split among Dems who have experienced a family member going through this and those that haven’t—arguments against him being on the fade all sound like they’re telling me I can’t believe my lying eyes, but like I said, it’s colored by my own personal experiences. I would be really interested in hearing from people who have watched a close relative decline, but insist this isn’t what they’re seeing with Biden. The comparison of videos between, say, 2016 and now seems stark to me, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:No, you are correct. The problem is the WH correspondents are omitting the ‘present himself as’ part for clicks because they want this narrative. There are plenty of concrete examples of memory lapses presented in the docs--he wasn't able to nail down when his son died, when he was vice-president, confused allies for rivals. It's more than just a removal of context. It lists out several lapses the investigators observed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 00:43
|
|
|
He called Egypt Mexico so not great for the optics there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
If Dems win, I’m comfortable giving credit to Dobbs, which is not a credit to their political abilities. If they win because of Dobbs, that’s still just entirely living within the political framework that the GOP determines. Relying on voter disgust at the other party because you cannot deliver a set of policy and messaging that appeals on its own is an indictment of the party. And if they win in that context, do you think they’d be smart enough to realize that it’s loving up the relationship with the base that you aren’t even worth voting for, it’s just that the other guy is so repulsive you won anyway? When is the party going to be expected to get a job and support itself, rather than coasting in the terminal fart cloud of GOP overreach?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
Feels like the current online game meta with RNG-based boxes you can buy with real money is just priming kids with Gambling Grooves all ready to go in their brains when they are old enough to switch to the grown up apps. That poo poo should be banned, IMO. It’s bad enough we’ve opened the floodgates for adults but we’re training kids on the model as soon as they can pick up a controller.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It’s been like this my entire adult lifetime I mean, Obama’s favorite pundit was David Brooks, that’s who he sought approval from. Biden? Joe Scarborough. This is just who they are. They’re not dupes, they’re just people who look up to idiots like those pundits, that’s whose approval they seek.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 21:49
|
|
|
That there's even a debate about releasing recordings from depositions, if you're not being forced to by the law, tells me they're worried as poo poo about the polling around his age. Because as others have said, it's just not a good PR move to release five hours of not-PR recordings of any politician. There's too much to mine there. I think the issue is that he has good days/bad days, good hours and bad hours, and they can't reasonably predict when those will happen, and so the obvious things, like "just schedule interviews or anything else unscripted when you know he'll be sharp and on the ball" aren't options. Because the obvious solution to all of this is to flood the zone with video of him looking sharp and on the ball--if that's possible, that's your number one go-to PR move here. I don't think the folks in charge of managing his image believe that's a possible strategy for them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I mean those guys are building bug out bunkers because they're dumb. There are a lot of dumb rich people. The (edit: second If they’re so dumb why are they so rich? Seems like there would be a lot of turnover in rich people if stupidity means they always make bad decisions. Rich people aren’t dumb for having bunkers; we’re dumb for not having organizations of ordinary people who aren’t theorizing, modeling and maybe doing some practical experimental work on consumer grade bunker breaching/isolation techniques. The bunkers are as much a political fact as a cultural one, and they’re real, and they’re widespread. When they go in the bunkers there will be an opportunity for collective action with results that potentially scale to incredible levels of destructiveness to existing class hierarchies. Find your people and start planning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 15:28
|
|
) richest man in the world is on ketamine while he makes business decisions.
|
There's definitely an argument to be made that every act of trying to help people navigate a system ultimately serves to reify that system by putting effort into supporting the engagement of the victims of the system with their oppressors, and supporting that oppressor-victim model by getting them aligned to what the oppressor demands of them. This goes to what I think about how medicated Americans are for psychological issues--those medications, oftentimes, are to treat issues that quite obviously generated by having to live in the culture and political economy we do--they are not entirely borne within, there's not a slice of Cursed People who will just get mental illness and the environment has nothing to do with it. Lots of Americans take drugs to be better workers, in a system that shits on workers. We are aligning ourselves to the illness in our society, as much as we are coping with our own struggles. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the pills. It does mean that we need more socialist and communist mental health professionals that tell you that this isn't your fault, and that there are a lot of people stuck in the same kind of veal pen you are. My personal therapist has been very open to talking about these ideas, while still helping me stay grounded and understand that you just have to take on the world as it exists, and if you get good enough at doing that, you might be able to spare some energy to try and make it a better world. It sucks, but this is what living in the center of the empire means. We get sad, because the violence the system inflicts on everyone cannot exclude us. And the moral injury we take on can only be medicated or mindfulnessed out of our view for so long. My wild conspiracy theory take is that Havana Syndrome is just moral injury finding a place to explain itself without the need to look at causes. selec fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Feb 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Yeah but this pretty well considered post is completely different than a drive by calling beetus a perpetrator of fascism for working to help people get what they can from the system. I think about this stuff a lot as a comfortable person who is comfortable because I'm sitting in the middle of a place that is powered by a system that will force compliance on entire peoples at gunpoint, despite that compliance making their lives worse. I'm a citizen of the Empire, and the Ewoks get barbecued so I can have cheap gas, and cheap electronics, and clean air. I'm sitting in the middle of it, insisting Alderaan had to be dealt with, or maybe that Alderaan is still there, and reports contrary to that are just fake news. It's difficult to parse what the right thing to do is when you have that knowledge sitting in your head. It's pretty infuriating to be in the middle of the empire and to just know, no matter what you do, you're making it worse for somebody, somewhere, just by trying to go along with what everybody else is doing to get by. Just existing as a living, contributing member of our society visits a portion of misery, distributed to places all around the globe, most of which I'll never see because why would I go as a tourist to an open pit mine, or a suicide-netted factory, or a bombed out village? But I also don't really have the option, if I respect myself, to be willfully ignorant of those miseries that my own comfort requires within the current status quo. To me, the right thing to do is to tear down the empire from within, to withdraw and fix ourselves before we take on fixing everyone else (which is really just what we call exploitation to put patches over the cracks in our own experience of the system) but that's not a popular idea, because the idea of change is terrifying to people, and change when you don't really know what the other side looks like because you haven't planned or even bothered to imagine what it could look like is even more terrifying. Deciding how to participate in the empire is a fraught one, and as I've aged I've become both more and less judgmental of how people cope with it, and those judgments become more and more about where the person I'm thinking about is positioned by class in our society. I have grown more weary of the excuses of comfortable people the more comfortable I become, and the more tempting those excuses become. If other people are so over the system we have that they see any meaningful participation in it as essentially working to perpetuate the inequities it contains, I can't really argue with that--functionally it is true. Having accepted my own position and complicity feels like a relief, in some ways, because at least I'm being honest with myself rather than just fighting back cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:If one isn't offering a credible alternative then tbh this is laziness and they're not actually withdrawing from it. The vast vast majority of people who express opinions like that are just using their alleged distance from it as a rhetorical cudgel. But as soon as you actually interrogate what they practice day to day, people making posts like the one directed at Beetus are never engaged in improving people's lives in a big way. Either from a framework of improving the system or a framework which exists completely outside of it. In fact much of the time they're meaningfully engaged in much more harmful occupations compared to the people they spurn who are working close to our broken social support systems. Can't be angry at people for giving up, IMO. You look at voter participation by socioeconomic status, it becomes very apparent that the system we have grinds the people who benefit the least from it until their participation in the system becomes either so repellant to them or such a burden that it's not worth it. This also goes to the mental health aspect--if you're medicating yourself to be a more compliant, reliable worker, that's also going to take away some of the vital sense of anger you might need to drive you to further action. SSRIs were great for helping me not feel as depressed, but they also take off some of the top end too, and that top end is where the energy to do the work sometimes lives. Then you look at the way that genuine energy around political actions are funneled into coopted, do-nothing endorsements of the status quo, and you don't blame people for not wanting to engage with that system. I gave up on believing that we can ever get national health care through a democratic process after the ACA passed. That doesn't mean I don't think we'll ever have national health care, but it will be done over the misery and fear generated in the powerful from a mass movement that is not able to be shunted into a political party. It will be done over the protests and tooth gnashing of the people who claim to be there to represent us. It cannot be aligned with a political party as they exist because, and again just IMO, it's clear that those parties exist to defuse and tamp down any challenge to major structural pillars of the rent-seeker economy, among other things. So I guess I disagree--I think giving up or unplugging from the work is a reasonable response to being handed a society that will grind you down from every angle. People have limited time on this earth, and if they believe (in my opinion, rightly) that engaging with a system that is tilted so heavily against their needs and desires that it's pointless and that energy can be better spent on creating a small place they can at least feel okay in, well who am I to tell them they're wrong? I cannot judge their lives because I don't live them. But the more comfortable someone is and the more content they are with the status quo? That's where I get judgy, because if anybody's gonna have the ability to drag themselves out to work to improve it, it's those people. This doesn't mean I don't believe that a working class political movement is destined to fail in this country, only that it can't be meaningfully aligned with either major party for it to succeed. The energy has to feel like it's going to a fight, not to support somebody who is socially indistinguishable from the person in HR you talk to once a year, who you never see on the production floor.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:the idea the security and staff of the rich bunker people ain't going to kill/exile their masters as soon as they realize the currency no longer has value is laughable Doug Rushkoff has written about being asked to be a consultant for the rich guys, and he brought up these same problems with them. That doesn’t mean they stopped the projects, just that they’ll have some innovative ideas to try out when the time comes. Haven’t read his book about it yet, SURVIVAL OF THE RICHEST, but it’s in the pile. I think it’s important to have a clear, well organized and public plan for a mass movement to trap/contain these people in these bunkers, with public plans and also hinting at secret plans, all contingent on the breakdown of larger schemes of law enforcement, both as a practical measure (plan for the worst, hope for the best) and a propaganda measure specifically designed to let the people building the bunkers know that the bunker won’t be safe, that safety only comes from cooperation, and we will cooperate to ensure you don’t escape any fate the rest of us have to contend with. selec fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Feb 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If society breaks down to the point where people are hiding out in bunkers, cash no longer has value, law enforcement no longer exists, and the state no longer possesses the monopoly on violence, I think most people are going to be too busy with actually important problems to worry about finding and attacking billionaire bunkers. You gotta get after it the moment they get in there. Presuming they have some system for advance warning, the model you want to operate in a big party. Like a big rave we’re holding in the wilderness that also has some fun work you can put in. It’s going to take planning and coordination for sure, but if the collapse is upon us, I think a big collective party that is also about taking revenge for the collapse might work out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:The bit you’re missing is that regardless of theory or society or any of that, even in the left some people are just narcissistic fuckwits who will look for any reason why them staying home and posting about imaginary revolution is more moral than someone else going to work and helping the poor. You’re probably a nice person who is too charitable to realise they for some people “leftist” is a badge that means “more moral than whoever I’m talking to, no matter how decent they are by conventional standards”. How do you parse out the deservingly angry and downtrodden vs the cynically angry and lazy? This feels like a “if it feels good it must be right” heuristic to me. How do you know who is right to be angry about the state of America, and who says they’re angry for all those reasons but is secretly just a bad person? This feels like political astrology. Or to put it another way, who are the deserving poor? https://x.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1757803728474656874?s=20 selec fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 14:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Well one of the easy ways to tell is that they love to go after and attack people who actually do things to improve the state of the world, bit generally they make it pretty clear in what they say and how they act (and how they refuse to act) I would like to say that calling a goon out for their job when their job is helping poor people navigate the system is an rear end in a top hat move. No doubt about it, hope my initial post made that clear. But that's not an interesting discussion so I tried to find something interesting there to discuss, which is trying to take that Guy Made Up To Get Mad At figure, the armchair leftist, the champagne socialist, the hypocritical do-nothing that is a pre-existing stereotype in our culture, and try and anchor that to something we can actually identify as political disengagement/disenchantment, which I see as a slightly more charitable way to identify actual examples of people that image maybe resembles in passing. He shows up in the post I was responding to: quote:The vast vast majority of people who express opinions like that are just using their alleged distance from it as a rhetorical cudgel. But as soon as you actually interrogate what they practice day to day, people making posts like the one directed at Beetus are never engaged in improving people's lives in a big way. Either from a framework of improving the system or a framework which exists completely outside of it. In fact much of the time they're meaningfully engaged in much more harmful occupations compared to the people they spurn who are working close to our broken social support systems. So I decided to try and anchor that to look at the ways we can actually measure political disengagement, and I think voting behavior is a good metric. The deserving poor reference goes back to my post that OP was responding to, where I laid out my case for how and why people might become disenchanted from politics, and pointing out that if you measure disenchantment by voting participation, the poorest in our society are the most turned off by our political process. I am fine talking about the archetype of the armchair leftist/wrecker that I keep bringing up here--I love that poo poo, it's absolutely a cultural figure that gets used across the political spectrum for different political ends, but I think that conversation is much more interesting if you anchor that in some kind of reality instead of this figure you can be mad at without ever having to ask questions like "how much debt does this angry armchair leftist have, do you imagine?" or "will this guy who never does the work but is always yelling at people be able to retire some day, do you suppose?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
Imagine being a left/liberal voter and getting a manifesto that clear and intentionally pointed at what you actually want, not mediated by a need to seem reasonable or willing to compromise. Just a pure vision of the country you want to live in, elucidated by the people you are being told your vote will empower. It's got to feel incredible to be pandered to that much, to be told what you care about actually really does matter, and to see a policy plan that at least goes beyond "We'll make healthcare savings available to tax credit qualifying households." Now, I don't think they'll be able to accomplish maybe even 10 or 15% of what is in that plan, were Trump to win, for reasons we can get into, but you have to envy the willingness to completely throw away the mask, and give the base something to really hope for and work for. That's good politics, regardless of what you think of the policies themselves, which are horrible. I honestly cannot imagine what a politician making an offer this tempting and blood-quickening to the Dem base would even look like, or who could credibly offer it to them; Bernie was successfully neutered, and the Squad doesn't have anybody with both the willingness and the clout to pull it off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
The FL riot in 2000 (known as the Brooks Brothers riot) was more successful than J6, and specifically due to the class composition and practical goals of the rioters. They were people with a specific plan, which they executed, with the institutional power and organization to carry out their goals. J6 had no institutional backup, and no organization. They didn’t have a single military leader pledged to lead his troops on behalf of Trump. They didn’t seize communications networks, they didn’t seize any armories or police stations, they didn’t have a plan to take key stakeholders hostage much less get them out of the Capitol so their value could be extracted properly as hostages, they didn’t have any assassinations or coordinated bombings of essential institutions set up. They had literally none of the planning, coordination and organization that any previously successful coup in history has had. People who think j6 came close to “succeeding” need to read any amount of history of how actual coups work. They sound like children discussing their plans to become rock stars or MLB players, or maybe a rock star who plays MLB on the weekend. For a fun start, check out Luttwak’s Coup d’Etat, A Practical Handbook. It’s a concise, well-researched analysis that’s also breezy and readable. Author is a complete psycho fascist living in Argentina longing for the revanche, but grown ups can enjoy material from problematic artists. J6 was a tantrum and literally nothing more.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The Brooks Brothers riot, that you just called "more successful," also didn't do any of the bolded things. The point of it wasn't to take control of the government at that specific moment, it was to delay the certification of the electoral count. This is actually similar to what the Brooks Brothers riot achieved - they disrupted a recount past the point that a court mandated that they'd be completed by, which let the issue continue to get ground up in the courts. In the same way, the goal of J6 was to disrupt the certification of the electoral results. It wasn't to immediately make the shaman king, it was to sow enough discord that Trump and co could scare enough people to go along with their nonsense later Right, but the difference is the Bush rioters knew they had institutional support, and had an organized plan—I wouldn’t call what they did an insurrection anyway, that’s more of a courthouse coup. They knew they had a bunch of lawyers already lined up, and sympathetic judges. J6ers had nothing lined up and institutional support was nil because any potential institutional partners were sick of Trump. It was never going to happen, and couldn’t have happened, because the planning and institutional support were nonexistent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
Sinema has successfully transferred the curse she was laboring under onto Fetterman, and can now be free again
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/peterhvideo/status/1765553068823675048 Incredible branding exercise. Dems putting uniformed military out in public spaces. People love that poo poo, definitely feels like an empire on the rise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yes the Prospect's framing here should be instructive for people who rely on them as a media source. Bad precedent here set with the USS Liberty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
It’s completely embarrassing that we have to use all our battlefield logistical capabilities for aid when our supposed ally could just allow us to send aid in via the road. I wonder if Bibi enjoys humiliating Biden more than Biden seems to love making excuses for poo poo like this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The existing border crossings are used to deliver aid already. Ships are generally much better for moving large volumes of cargo (which is why Ukraine is trying to secure the sea routes out rather than ship everything by land) and can help distribute aid from other entry points. This has a built-in assumption that this is happening in addition to US aid coming in over the road, and that this is about adding to that capacity. Am I reading that right? 1. Is US aid coming in via the existing roads? Why or why not? 2. Is it cost effective to build a temporary pier, or are there other drivers behind why we’re doing this rather than using existing transportation infrastructure? My read is that Biden is doing this because he refuses to order Bibi to get the settlers away from the border crossings, either because he doesn’t want to, Bibi wouldn’t do it anyway, or Bibi can’t do it. The Best Case for doing this is to add capacity to existing aid going in through existing channels, but I don’t think that’s what is actually going on. But I think the answers to those two questions would provide a lot of clarity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:The dumbest part is that there’s nothing embarrassing about being able to place a port anywhere in the world at short notice with only the veneer of local consent. That is raw power. It is if this is territory controlled by a supposed ally. You don't go inventing new logistical routes wholesale because everything is cool and your ally is totally cooperating and all the aid you could possibly get in using the existing routes is getting in. This is Biden meekly trying to not piss off Bibi while also trying to placate his left flank.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
Occupy definitely injected a little bit of language into the discourse that we needed. But it also gave us Tim Pool and a whole cavalcade of self-promoters like him. So it’s definitely a great example of how not to structure a protest movement (obligatory read IF WE BURN) because it turns out you need a plan, discipline and clear goals that Naomi Wolf can’t claim to own. It was like if you looked at successful mass movements that had preceded it and said “okay let’s do it the opposite of that”
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:If we burn is tbh a terrible book to read about protest structure/strategy or for anything resembling a deep analysis of social organization and dynamics within movements. He spends the entire book talking about how protests get coopted by charismatic individuals and outside influences and his conclusion is basically, "maybe we should start them off with a charismatic vanguard which will prevent cooptiing" which you've outlined. I think there's maybe 6 pages maximum that actually are focused on analysis or protest tactics. This doesn’t jibe with my takeaways from the book. I think there are some clear observations; keep your goals clear, organize and have plans and backup plans, and do not let NGOs you can’t hold accountable get involved. It doesn’t just come out and tell you to take a Leninist tact, but it will breadcrumb a reader aware of that tendency towards it. It feels like a good tip off book that you then follow up with deeper, more focused readings. It’s not written as a manual, but I think a good analysis is there and pretty easy to pull from when thinking about why Occupy ended up being such a dead end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:A huge amount of odious crap circulates through tiktok, it is the current retreat of every idiot grift targeted at the youth outside long form podcasts. Its a nuance free environment in its raw engagement phase, that tends to boil up the most extreme positions. But enough about Facebook! Seriously though it’s all social media, deciding one channel is worse is just working the refs because you hate what is popular on that channel. If FOX was a streaming service invented two years ago we might be having the same conversation right now about the perfidious Australian algorithms.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:This seems... weirdly hosed up and way outside the ACLU's stated goals? What is the management structure like there that this kind of legal expense could get approved and pushed forward? Planned Parenthood also engages in union busting. It turns out if your politics aren’t class-intersectional they can easily suck the moment you get outside your lane.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Gaaaaah https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/03/31/planned-parenthood-affiliate-fires-two-union-leaders-disciplines-entire-bargaining-team/ https://advocate.stpaulunions.org/2023/07/07/seiu-pulls-mn-lawmakers-endorsement-over-union-busting-at-planned-parenthood/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 18:37
|
|
