I think the main problem is the private ownership of the means of production.

As long as they don’t drone strike entire weddings in Yemen, as long as they don’t explicitly protect the torturers of Abu Ghraib, as long as they don’t pass a copy of Romneycare but more right wing, as long as they don’t send 40B to a nation actively engaged in ethnic cleansing, as long as they don’t expand upon and set the stage for worsening the border policy that is already draconian, as long as they don’t send care packages to bankers responsible for the economy tanking. When will you moronic liberals get it through your thick fucking skulls that this is not about optics but about policy. Jesus fucking christ

Vote blue lol

Real “if a democrat were doing this we’d be at brunch right now” energy.

Someone who takes on radical aesthetics but is hell bent on preserving the neoliberal status quo. Imagine someone with blue hear wearing a pussy hat celebrating that Meloni was elected.

Pretty fucking poorly, which is why I’m not crazy about the strategy we’ve been using for the past decades. You understand these events didn’t just happen out of nowhere, right? They’re a result of the things that happened before them.

So, that’s been the tactic for a bunch of decades now. How’s that been going for the working class?

I largely agree with what you’re saying, but I think the idea that Israel was established because of Hitler is not entirely accurate (and not entirely wron either).

First off, zionism was conceived as a solution to the rampant antisemitism in Europe (not just Germany), well before Hitler even left elementary school. It was intended to be a colonial project, so they looked for the help of colonial powers like the Ottomans and the UK. They ended up choosing Palestine as a good location, and the UK (which was occupying Palestine at the time) formally agreed to an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, already in 1917 (Balfour declaration). At this point, Hitler was in the trenches of WWI, and no one had even really heard of him, so it is unlikely that he was a factor in the drawing up and signing of the Balfour declaration.

Secondly, the first wave of jewish colonizers (30k ish) arrived between 1881 and 1903. This is around the time Hitler was born, and I’m willing to bet he didn’t play a big part in them moving. They were fleeing the pogroms.

Until then, the local arab and jewish Palestinians had been co-existing in relative peace, as regular neighbors. The arrival of the jewish colonizers led to a cycle of violence of colonizers attacking the natives and vice versa. This culminated in the forming of jewish terrorist groups Irgun, Hagana, Lehi, and others, which carried out bombings, murders, and sabotage. A famous example is the Deir Yassin massacre, where Hagana killed 100-200 Palestinian villagers. Near the end of WWII, these terrorist groups were also increasingly attacking the British, seeking the establishment of an independent jewish state.

It was this context in which resolution 181 was drafted, in 1947. Of course, the holocaust was a major factor in its adoption, but the resolution itself was a direct response to the violent conflict between the jewish colonizers and the native population, and the insurgency of the colonizers against the British.

Next, I’m not entirely in agreement with the idea that Israel became the madman. As you can see from the terrorist groups I mentioned, the colonizers were already violent even before the eatablishment of Israel. After the establishment, it immediately became much worse.

Upon its creation, Israel was given 55% of the land despite making up only 33% of the population. As a result, a large portion of the native population had to be removed. They did this by destroying entire villages, about 500 of them, and carrying out numerous massacres. About 700k Palestinians were removed from the region. There’s a technical term for this: “ethnic cleansing”

For the next 75 years, Israel would continue the violence against the Palestinian population. Notable events were the 1967 war, which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of close to another 500k Palestinians, the Sabra Shatilla massacre, where 3500 refugees were murdered in one night, the break-their-bones policy which involved rhe whole scale torture of protestors, and so on.

There has never been a point in time where Israel was not a violent aggressor. The only difference today is that it’s harder to hide on account of social media.

Get that boot out of your mouth

but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form

Well sure, and they haven’t been able to in almost a decade. This court ruling is about something else. They’re not calling it milk, they’re not mislabelling their product. In fact, the campaign this is about is them saying explicitly this is not milk, and apparently that goes too far. I’m totally with you that food labelling should be clear, but this is not about that. This is not consumer protection. This is anticompetitive agribusiness lobbying, no more, no less.

Man 1946 was wild

No no bro bro listen

humanitarian nightmare

Genocide. The word is genocide. A genocide that doesn’t just spring up out of nowhere and kind of “happens”, but is actively being committed by Israel and the United States since October 8th 2023.

That’s assuming the only way to help is to vote for the fascist enablers. And it isn’t! I feel like you’re not engaging the argument in good faith

No bro just roll over and take it bro pls I’m telling you

I don’t think this is quite true. People that call themselves centrists can come from a benign place. In my mind, the folks that call themselves centrists tend to mainly care about preserving the status quo, no matter what it is.

They’ll usually use terms like “big tent”, “adult in the room”, and if they went to school “realpolitik”. Usually privileged, they don’t understand the urgency for change for those in need, so they’ll balk at any method that may actually achieve some progress for the marginalized and underprivileged. Usually they’ll say some wise, enlightened thing about “optics”.

And they’ll tell themselves that they care. They’ll tell themselves and others that they’re the good guys. They’ll watch CNN and read the economist, and they’ll tell themselves they’re informed. They’re always on the right side of history, but only ever when it’s already too late. I think they genuinely don’t know.

… AND THE HOOOME OF THE BRAAAAAVE

Not to mention Oprah

The purpose of a system is what it does. Capitalism is functioning perfectly fine.

I feel like you’re a bit too emotionally involved. It’s just a cartoon, calm down.

Anyway, to clarify my comment, which I thought was brief and to the point enough that it was easy to grasp, but apparently not for you: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with covering current events or lampooning stuff. The way south park does this is sanctimonious and smug, to the point where I find it a bit hard to watch.