Sometimes, your opponent is correct (or has knowledge to be gleaned from their propaganda, even if the outward conclusion is incorrect) and it’s an opportunity to learn and improve. Not for liberals though, with the reactionary drive to get “back to normal” or “make america great again”.
Yep I’m getting pretty sickened by what I hear on corpo media about this and other recent events. Sanewashing might be the term, but at the least they try to hash out reasonings and strategy and speculation like it’s Sunday Night Football instead of the full-blown fascist thrashing that it is. These news orgs stumbling over themselves to take more of the dollary dick, desperate to maintain the thin veneer of civility that has been cultivated by their owners over generations. Fools and cowards the lot of them.
Ah yes I see European solidarity is alive and well. No chance you’ll ever have fascism again over there with statements like that. Truly a bastion of the brightest and best ideals of humanity.
/s
I’m trying to imagine what sort of evidence would be sufficient to convince the majority of his base… The “fake” deflect is too strong now with fake videos and audio being so easy to create.
You’re presupposing they would have 1) done it anyway and 2) at the same time it actually happened. They may have reconsidered their attack or delayed it. The delay could have given opportunity for the dynamics to change.
Arresting journalists from a huge news company would come with some blowback. The internal weighing of that potential blowback and how it affects the regime’s relations could have changed things. At the very least, it complicates things for them further - stalling them, making them waste time on listening and responding and managing the media to craft the narrative.
Stay strong friend. Take care of yourself and who else you can.
Under rule of her by duress, not open-ended self-determination. The mission wasn’t “we’re gonna remove a dictator and let the people of Venezuela determine their destiny, let us know how we can help ma’am.” It was “your guy is a narcoterrorist [citation needed] and we’re gonna rebuild your oil infrastructure.” So in your opinion it’s not imperialism because we don’t yet have a colony there? I’m really struggling to grasp why you don’t think this is an expression of imperialism.
US Imperialism has expressed itself throughout history in many ways, regardless of congressional approval and regardless of its status as a “war” or not. You should do some reading on how Hawaii became a state, for one example among many. Also there’s this.
You’re comparing a non-fiction, evolving scenario of US imperialism to a fictional scenario where a “somebody” removes a guy you don’t like with zero strings attached, no ulterior motives, and no stated motives or historical context before or after.
Your comparison is poor, half-thought (IMO), and driven by catharsis. You are tacitly endorsing hegemony - a position enabled by your subconscious knowing (or hoping) that your general safety and comfort is protected living inside of a fascist superpower.
I read statements like yours and my heart hurts.
I’m not so sure the founders intended for everyday folk to have power, regardless of the flowery language in the documents we know them for. Lately I’m questioning everything I was taught (or hoped) this country was. The more I look at our situation now and compare it to history, I feel like we’re on course with the ideals we’ve demonstrated since our inception.
I just feel incredibly disappointed, disgusted… Lots of things.
Piss bottles, for one. You should listen to the workers who have gone on strike at Amazon. You’ll hear it direct instead of some talking head.
Your opinions of companies shouldn’t end at how much spit they put on your knob as a consumer. These companies do real damage to the world around you - regardless of their saccharin smiles when you’re looking to give them money.
Kamala “Do Not Come” Harris
Joe “Nothing Will Fundamentally Change” Biden
Nancy “Insider Trading is Fine, Actually” Pelosi
They both serve capital first, all the rest is rhetoric to keep you frustrated and bewildered - unable to realize it. You’ll spend the rest of eternity focusing on the outrage of the week, blind to the fact that the economics of the day dictate how they steer your thought and energy. When the chips are down, none of them worry about your poor non-capital-having ass.
It’s not “no true Scotsman”, you just have a completely blurred concept of what communism even is. Literally happening under a capitalist economy, with a dictatorship of the bourgeois.
This is part and parcel of fascism by the way: the muddying of discourse itself so terms become meaningless. Everything becomes everything, and nothing all at once. Education is the cure. I’d recommend reading communist texts if you want to learn more of the difference.
So good communication is lying to people instead of trying to achieve higher understanding? Just keep dumbing down discourse so long as it gets you some short-term gain?
Wow, with thought like that it’s no wonder Americans voted in fascism. You’re supposed to be on the “good” side? I see why Democrats are more than happy to smash leftists teeth in alongside their fascist counterparts. 'm sure you’ll get there when chips are down.
Definitely not communism - these moves don’t have the intent or the effect of bringing forth (or supporting) a dictatorship of the proletariat. They are purely for the consolidation of power and wealth - the exact opposite of communist ideology.
State stake, ownership, or nationalization of companies isn’t new. Fascist regimes of old also participated in similar tactics.
This is a jab to get under the skin of fascist supporters - and it might work, I dunno - but it isn’t factually communism. And also, this is democrats repeating to fascists that they will smash lefties faces in along with them when the time comes.
And an honest answer for you: no.
Communism speaks of “seizing the means of production”. The means of production aren’t solely “business”. More core than that, communism speaks of a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Since we are still evidently in a dictatorship of the bourgeois, this move isn’t “communism”. These things don’t get us closer to working people having real power in this country.
State stake or ownership in companies isn’t new by a long shot. Fascist regimes of old also fused and blurred the line between state and private enterprise.
So long story short: this is another muddying of the waters from the two major parties that serve the same interests - profit at the detriment of all else.
My hypothesis is this is Kamala signalling to fascists that she’s not a real enemy, because now she’s calling them something other than what they are, while also aligning herself with the fascists against anyone who’s more left than her politics.
Do you suppose that “concrete power” was obtained spontaneously? Kirk and his ilk paved the way for what we have now. He was one cog in a directed system of influence to instate fascism.
Even if the shooter targeted Mango Mussolini and succeeded, do you think that American fascism would vanish? No, because again it’s a system of influence that led to this point. A long, slow erosion of the social fabric brought on by bad-faith arguments, lies, and wanton disregard for the welfare of others - even jovial disregard for others.
This system of influence has told people that empathy is a weakness - the dead guy even said as much. I tend to disagree with that sentiment, but now we’re in “paradox of tolerance” territory.
I’ll take whatever win against fascism that comes. You speak of the shooter possibly being “the dumbest leftist” - I guess they should have consulted first? Like what national plan is there for any left movement in the US? If you mean “left” as in Democrat - there is no plan, just wait it out and keep sucking the corpo cock. If you mean “left” as in Anarchist, Socialist, etc. then there’s also no plan because Americans as a whole have made it clear that they love the boot, love consumerism, and hate change. So what imaginary grand strategy are you picturing?
Wow, you know nothing of this person and your take is “they did it for attention”? Holy shit… You kinda sound like the reich-wingers who are already calling the shooter a “liberal”.
Can you help me understand Motion #2 by Mace? I was lead to believe that “credible” wording didn’t stick, but it sounds like you’re saying it actually did? If so, then yeah it leaves a lot open to being left out of the subpoena on that one word alone.
Consumerism is so deeply engrained in the psyche of the US that it often pushes aside morals or ethics.
Like another comment or said: there isn’t. Everyone is a target, even if they’re not the target this week.
Take a look at what was done to protestors of the past. Even in recent years before this administration, they were gassed, beat, and made into criminals for exercising their right to assemble and express themselves. There are always “reasons” they were treated poorly but we must not be fooled: these reasons are hollow, don’t hold up to scrutiny, and are often outright fabrications. The lies you are to believe from their narratives is 1) someone in the vicinity destroyed property or acted in an “uncivil” way and 2) that means that everyone in the vicinity gets their rights taken away, and 3) if they resist their rights being shelved then they are met with violence.
It’s important to realize that none of this is new. This is par for the course, and the tools and narratives have been in use for generations. I’m gonna say it again: this is not new, it’s just more overt and laid bare for more people to see and realize.
You and I as working people are led to believe that if we just be meek and mild we’ll effect change. We are supposed to believe that not inconveniencing the state and being compliant will get us to our desired ends. On the other side of our struggle, the many forms of violence ARE the means by which change and control is effectuated.
This isn’t a call to violence, just an acknowledgement that violence is being used upon us as working class people and the inevitable end of that will be more violence, as history has shown. We need to disillusion ourselves of the hope that we can somehow deal with our problems in the warm comfort of safety. There is no guarantee of safety. We need to formulate our responses upon that reality, first and foremost, or we open ourselves to fragility and bewilderment at the violence that will most assuredly come upon us.
(Almost) No one wants this, but we need to be honest with ourselves about the reality that we face.