OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 19Comments 2,782Joined 1 yr. ago
I suppose it must make the world a lot simpler if you assume the US Democratic and Republican parties represent the full range of beliefs that exist in the world, and anyone who doesn't neatly fit into those categories is simply lying.
Imo classical economists were generally more clear-sighted and honest than modern ones. Of course they had their biases and perspective based on their class (and their audience), but at that point economics was so poorly understood that theorists were legitimately trying to figure stuff out, moreso than trying to produce propaganda. Of course, the industrial proletariat and threat of socialism wasn't really present yet either, so the class conflict was more about new money bourgeois vs old money aristocrats and landlords.
Marx and Smith are a lot more similar than most people think, because Marx was writing in the context of various economic assumptions that come from Smith, such as the labor theory of value, which is usually attributed to Marx but actually comes from Smith.
The thing about Smith though is that his writing style was very dry and repetitive so nobody actually reads him, at best, they might read abridged versions which cut out any inconvenient parts like that. So he just kinda became known as the capitalism guy and is thrown in the same category as Ayn Rand.
Bulls on Parade (Hell Yeah Cover)
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes (Hell yeah!)
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal (Hell yeah!)
I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library (Hell yeah!)
Line up to the mind cemetery now (Hell yeah!)
What they don't know keeps the contracts alive and movin' (Hell yeah!)
We don't gotta burn the books we just remove 'em (Hell yeah!)
While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells (Hell yeah!)
Rally 'round the family, pockets full of shells (Hell yeah!)
There's a long history of anarchists who oppose voting
https://libcom.org/article/why-anarchists-dont-vote-elisee-reclus
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aotearoa-workers-solidarity-movement-why-we-don-t-vote
https://apps.lib.umich.edu/online-exhibits/exhibits/show/debatedemocracy/anarchism---anti-voting
I live in Illinois. If somehow the heavens and earth move such that Illinois turned red, then there would be absolutely zero chance it would be the tipping point in the presidential election. The vast majority of people in the US live in safe states.
And for the record, I do vote in down-ballot races, the ones that actually matter, but none of you care because it's all about genuflecting before the leader of the blue tribe. Which, frankly, just gives me more reason to refuse to.
"Democracy" doesn't need our help to be sabotaged, it's falling apart on it's own. Every time someone says that the voters have to change en masse to meet the policies of politicians rather than politicians having to respond to what their constituents want, they are the ones taking the axe to democracy. Why the hell would anyone care about upholding or defending a system that we have no say in? Somehow, insisting on popular demands and trying to turn the will of the people into policies that protect the rights of the vulnerable gets translated into "trying to sabotage democracy" equating Anarchists and Marxists alike with fascists.
You're saying you're learning... seitanic magic? š
Reabsorption of bone is fairly common place in non unionized fractures that donāt end up getting good blood flow. Osteoclasts will breakdown the bone fragments that donāt unionize
This is why it's so important to talk to your coworkers and get organized, if those bones were unionized this never would've happened.
If you wanna play chess, use your head.
Purple is a fine color to use while employing alternative methods of holding people accountable when they control the courts and the senate
āIn fact, we donāt want them to make cars for us. We want to make our own cars. We donāt need their lumber. We donāt need their energy. We donāt need anything from Canada. And I say the only way this thing really works is for Canada to become a state.ā
Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Trying to remove any and all trade barriers in order to prevent trade.
A man rubs a lamp and a genie comes out and says, "I will grant you one wish, anything you ask for, whatever you can imagine, your wish is my command."
The man shouts, "I want a dragon!"
The genie responds, "I'm sorry, but a dragon is just too much, it's just not possible for that to exist. Can you think of something else?"
The man thinks for a minute and says, "Well, in that case, I guess I wish for the rich and powerful to face significant legal consequences within the existing system for the harm they do to regular people."
The genie sighs and says, "What color did you want that dragon?"
didnāt immediately solve all problems
I love how liberals constantly downplay shit like this. If you're upset about your friends and family being shoveled into a pointless meat grinder and you're experiencing mass death and oppression, then you're just upset that "democracy didn't immediately solve all problems." In the same way that opposition to genocide is frequently framed as, "throwing a fit because you don't get your way," and such.
It's literally just the Joker speech from The Dark Knight, as long as there's a plan, it's fine, even if the plan is horrible, the only thing that matters is that the norms are respected and the proper procedure is followed. You and everyone you care about can be sent to concentration camps, just so long as the decision is made by a legislative body following proper procedure. Systemic violence, like dragging people from their homes to die in a trench en masse, is perfectly acceptable, just so long as it isn't disruptive, just so long as everything is going according to plan. The only problem y'all have with fascism is that it's so rude and blunt, if it persued the same goals respectfully you'd be completely fine with it.
Yes, it did benefit the people immensely to get out of the war. Aside from the horrors of WWI, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that if they hadn't dropped out and focused on rebuilding and industrial development at that point, there's a fair chance that they lose to the Nazis in WWII and we'd all be speaking German right now. Besides, in the chaos of this period the so-called "democracy" wasn't some kind of established, functional system, we're talking about a provensional government, and one that completely failed to address ongoing crises (which is kinda the point of having a provisional government). Under the conditions of the time, sensible people radicalize, and then they force things to change and get rid of those conditions, and then people 100 years later to whom the conditions are utterly foreign waggle their fingers about it, but they don't care because they're no longer dying in a ditch.
One easy trick that makes you immune to propaganda - simply respond "not sure" to every question you're ever asked. It doesn't really even save you though because they'll just lump you in with the people who chose the wrong answer. The site repeatedly uses the phrase, "failed to identify as false" to group the "not sures" in with the incorrect responses.
There's an almost endless way to present poll numbers and survey results to support whatever conclusion you like, you could say that "fewer than half the respondents were able to identify this claim as false," or you could say, "80% of respondents avoided incorrectly labeling this claim as true," depending on what narrative you prefer. And that's assuming that the raw data itself, which comes from an internet survey, is reliable and representative.
In 2020 the democrats were calling the border wall racist and they won, then in 2024 it was "we're the ones who are actually gonna build the wall, Trump's all talk." They literally tried to position themselves to the right of Republicans on the issue in order to win over the mythical centrists, and predictably what happened was that their support among Latinos broke down.
A lot of these people are religious and conservative, but were willing to vote for Democrats as long as there was substantial differences on race/immigration. But even if they were the "lesser evil" on immigration from a pro-immigrant perspective - something which they denied as hard as they could, by the way - if the difference didn't appear substantial any more, if it was framed in technical arguments about how to do it rather than moral arguments about what to do, then many of them no longer saw it as damning and voted based on other issues where they're more aligned with Republicans.
This is often what swing voters actually look like, by the way, and why pivoting to the right to capture them is often counterproductive. It turns out pivoting right on an issue where doing so directly harms millions of people so you can appeal to the dozen or so people who like Dick Cheney loses elections. Swing voters are a lot more complex than the idiotic "conventional wisdom" that just has everyone at a different point on a one dimensional left-right scale.
Their methodology involves asking people a bunch of questions and then if they donāt get 100% correct theyāre counted as believing misinformation. Putting aside the unreliability of online polls, thatās a pretty misleading way of framing it, if you ask me.
If you asked people 10 questions about just about anything, youād probably find a substantial number of people who donāt get every one right. In fact, they did do this under the heading, āDisinformation Nation: Americans Widely Believe False Claims on a Range of Topics.ā Thatās probably why they found that, āRespondents identifying as Democrats were about as likely (82 percent) to believe at least one of the 10 false claims as those identifying as Republicans (81 percent).ā
Many of the people responding to the poll may not have ever encountered the claims they were asked about. If you are first encountering a claim in that context, you pretty much just have to guess whether you think itās true based on vibes. And you can easily set up misleading vibes, like, āConservative initiative Project 2025 proposes cutting or eliminating Social Securityā which is false because itās not explicitly stated, but it does explicitly state a whole bunch of other horrible shit, so like, if you get got by that one it doesnāt really show that you believe in an inaccurate picture of the world, just that you got tripped up by details. But that claim dings you for ābelieving misinformationā just as much as " COVID-19 vaccines killed 15 million people worldwide."
So like it doesnāt really tell us very much about how far reaching disinformation really is, the results are more of a reflection of their methodology.
[Reposted from the last time this study was posted]
If you define everyone you feel like doing violence towards as "an other church" then sure, but then the distinction is completely meaningless. Plenty of the examples I mentioned such as the inquisitions were used against people who were longtime, faithful members of the church. No one was safe.
Well, if it didn't, then perhaps there's no way to get them to do what we want and in that case it is imperative that they be replaced as soon as possible, a goal that is also furthered by voting third party.
The thing to fight for is ranked choice voting, or some other method without a spoiler effect. Until you have that
No. The thing is for candidates to endorse ranked choice voting and implement it, and until they do that, they are going to have to deal with the spoiler effect.
This shit is so stupid. "You have to fall in line unconditionally forever, until, out of the kindness of their hearts and against their own interests, the party decides to let you out of that situation." That's just saying we have to fall in line unconditionally forever. They're never going to just give us systemic change, it's designed this way on purpose and is working exactly the way they want it to.
The only way to actually apply pressure towards getting necessary policies is through setting conditions on your vote based on those policies. This ideology of "lesser-evilism" is completely illogical and incoherent, and the whole reason we're here is because it's such an egregious failure. There is no incentive for politicians to implement RCV if they know they'll have your vote either way. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
I've considered it, but I might have to go back to school to get the qualifications. I'm also trans and nervous about what that future might look like.
And yeah, there's also the issue of just training people to work for defense companies. At least you could maybe warn them? Tbh, if did go back to school for teaching, I feel like I'd want to teach history instead, it's much more of a "study of everything" than physics is (and is more relevant to politics). Like tbh I kinda lost interest in physics after graduating, for me, it was tied to a lot of things that I've left behind.
I have a BS in physics that I never used, I chose it because I had no idea what I was doing and discovered afterward that most jobs involving physics are less "figuring out how stars work, for the joy of discovery" and more, "figuring out new and exciting ways to kill brown people, for profit," which I did not sign up for. So, I've wound up doing grunt work at warehouses instead. "Learn to wash your own vegetables and you won't have to pay court to kings," as the story goes.
A lot of people go into STEM because they just want to solve problems and the issue with that is that if you just solve any problem that's put in front of you without regard for who's problem it is and whether solving it will actually make the world a better place, then you belong in the same category as the guy who developed the Blitzkrieg doctrine, who claimed afterwards that he didn't really care about "politics" and was just doing his job as best as he could. Just because you're capable of solving a problem and someone's asking you to doesn't mean that you actually should.