7-30-21 4:12 •
Am I The Only One
Hope so.
MaryWorth: A lot of people feel this way.
"Our Flag" is not a value.
MaryWorth: Half the country actually.
Feel what way? What values is this for?
MaryWorth: The good ole days means when people gave a shit about their town, when they cared about their community and everyone wasn’t taught to be out for themselves only.
This is what being a Democrat is supposed to be about. Hyper-capitalism of the kind espoused by the right - and supported by both parties, frankly - is the opposite of this.
Kelley: Oh sure, Mary! You just want to go back to the good old days...of racism.
MaryWorth: How is it that people can completely close their eyes to every single thing that happened in the past EXCEPT for racism? That’s the only thing that is in the pages of history? Racism and nothing else?
No one is allowed to remember Main Street looking vibrant, no one is allowed to remember kids playing in the street until the street lights came on, no one is allowed to remember sock hops or dancing with dinner, no, it’s just racist stuff. Nothing else happened.
No one is trying to ignore the fact that racism has happened, you are trying to ignore what people want back.
My neighborhood looks vibrant and kids play in the street until the lights come on and they have sock hops and dancing. If you want that just do it. Why does it exist only in nostalgia? None of that is unique to America's past. People do that everywhere.
Kelley: Sounds like you need a time machine more than anything else. All that stuff went away because of normal societal shifts. But I don't see how any of that stuff that you mentioned has anything to do with the lyrics of the song that this post is about.
Maybe in some places it went away; around here it arrived. I live in a largely Hispanic neighborhood in AZ and even with Covid, people are having parties, kids play in the street and people dance. There is live music, people have outdoor parties with bands playing at their homes every other block. They rent big blowup castles and all the kids bounce. It's not a rich neighborhood but there is nothing stopping people from partying.
MaryWorth: They want small towns back, they want community pride back, they want Christmas lights and Easter egg hunts at the local park every year.
Kelley: When did Christmas Lights and Easter Egg hunts go away?
MaryWorth: I highly doubt you have ever once heard anyone say they want separate water fountains back, that’s just not at all what people are worried about. No one cares about bringing that aspect of life back.
Small towns and that way of life is what is dwindling and a lot of people want it back.
So move to one. As the song says, there's the f-ing door.
MaryWorth:
I don’t think you get it.
I’m in one of those small towns, and our rights get trampled every single day. {long list}
If we want prayer in schools that we pay for and get 100% voting support in our small town for it, No! You have to do what big government says to do.
So yeah, if you come to our areas and won’t stop bitching until we sit down and change our way of life to please you, go find somewhere that shares your values because it ain’t here and we’re not changing anytime soon.
Kelley: Our town has Christmas lights and Easter egg hunts. Our downtown is nice. We have people who care about each other.
MaryWorth: That’s good, and I’m glad you do have that. But around here there is one livable town for every 5 towns. The others are dead, dying, beyond poor, riddled with drugs and with schools you wouldn’t send a prisoner to.
We definitely want that 1950’s kind of life back and are fighting to get it back, but we want the “good parts” to happen for everyone regardless of race, color or creed. We just want things nice.
The "good parts" cannot happen for religious minorities if you allow Christian theology in public schools, though. What if they move to your 100% voted-for-prayer-in-school town?
MaryWorth: Then hopefully they can sit there quietly for the 45 seconds it takes to pray and then get on with their day.
Moving somewhere doesn’t mean everyone in that town has to change for you.
What about the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? Why bother being a Proud American if you don't care about them?
That is what makes us who we are.
MaryWorth: That’s what makes you who YOU are. Not us. Again, now you’re really starting to see why people talk about civil wars and seceding still.
Because there are two Americas, your version and mine and they aren’t the same. We each have more than 100 million people on our sides of the ropes, but they’re not on the same side.
Nothing that I am beaming with pride about America is celebrated by your type, it’s bashed constantly. Your type isn’t proud of America, it’s ashamed by it, so now I ask you the same question… why are you American if the military, the police, the schools, the history, are all shameful?
Kelley: Fine, put your money where your mouth is and secede.
MaryWorth: Maybe we will.
Most southerners don’t want to be one country with the rest of the United States and go by your rules whether we want to live like that or not.
So this song is not about America at all. It's about loving the Confederacy.
Kelley: So secede then, and don't complain about losing all your federal funding.
MaryWorth: That sounds great! You just talk to the people on your side and get them to agree not to try and kill us all if we do and we’ll have a great plan!
That can be done right? If we want to leave this party we can?
The United States of America cannot live next to Gilead. It will be too tempting.
Get ready to build a wall. Not to keep people out.
MaryWorth: You need to get over your idea that America is not allowed to have monocultural communities. We are.
"Monocultural communities"? Somehow I think you are going to have to workshop that into a simpler slogan if you want people to take a bullet for it. I'm sure you'll come up with something catchy.
While you are busy hoping to kill and die to make kids listen to state chanting, global warming is getting a lot worse, a lot faster than anyone thought, and the excesses of this way of life are killing the source of it. We are choking off our umbilical cord.
The only thing that will save humanity is massive cooperation. We don't have time to kill each other over this deeply stupid crap.
The United States invented a new, very powerful form of cooperation with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is the law of your land and it's pretty good. It's the kind of system that has allowed change. That is the kind of progress, inclusion and cooperation we need if we are going to survive.
Please stop wasting time.
MaryWorth: The excesses of who's way of life? Maybe yours, but not mine!
Industrialism. Please do not pretend you are living without electricity and internet, or without cars, or that you wove the fabric and sewed your own clothes, or that you grind the wheat for your bread, or that you assembled the microchips in your television and phone. You use as much industrialism as every American.
It is going to take a lot of working together to get the whole industrialized world to re-think industrialization and still find a way to maintain a high quality of life for billions of people.
Pretending they should all just move to your town and act like you is more stalling.
_____________________________________________________________________________
MaryWorth: If people want to save the environment, living in small towns where the methods of food distribution and living necessities can be contained to local resources is what they need to do to live more cleanly.
We drive older cars and fix them when they break instead of buying new ones every few years, we do have a number of people around here who make clothes and sell them at the farmer's markets and they do well.
We do have farms around here that supply us with just about everything we would need so if there is something that would be too difficult to get in, we can easily do without.
Unless you are suggesting we do without electricity and get rid of cars, my way of life is much more cleaner and environmentally friendly.
Whatever, no one believes that you are wearing handmade clothes or that you grew your phone at a local farm.
Millions of people can't just decamp to small towns. The towns wouldn't be small anymore, duh. The local resources wouldn't support them. And you don't want them there unless they act just like you. This is nothing like a solution.
We do need to switch to sustainable and environmentally friendly systems, but they have to be high-tech in order to work for the billions of people already here on this planet. You can't just turn off cities. How would what you are describing even work?
MaryWorth: Honey, how you live and destroy the environment is not my problem to fix.
I said we grow food, not phones. If we needed to, we'd survive just fine turning off the internet, in fact we did live for a very long time without it.
You wrecked the environment. You fix it. We're already doing our part, figure out how to do yours because your lifestyle is unsustainable.
Whatever, you are having this conversation online, and you are as much of an industrialist as any other American. You use as much gas and electricity and depend just as much on the commerce of the cities to provide the tools that make your life as any other American.
Trying to bail from reality will not work in the long term.
MaryWorth: Our resources are actually renewable. Our lifestyle is actually sustainable.
If there were no more trucks or airplanes, we could still feed ourselves with our surroundings and we do at a phenomenally higher level than city people do, every single day.
If there was no more running water, we would still have plenty of water, and plenty of us do that get our water from well-water.
As Hank Williams Jr. sang, we can skin a buck, we can run a trot line, country folks can survive.
Well I doubt the majority wants to live in the stone age. That is your real problem.
MaryWorth: I'm not quite sure you grasp when the stone age was.
Thing is, the majority in my town, and in my state, do want to live the way I am living, and they vote to maintain it every time.
Once again, here comes the importance of states rights.
You do not grasp what a stone age is, and it isn't a when.
But I mean, the majority in your state. You have millions of people living in your cities with nowhere to go. Do you think they are all going to vote for the end of cities?
MaryWorth: We don't even have 1 million living in the whole state. We've got plenty of room if people want to spread out even more. We could spread everyone out to the point of there being only 5-6 people each square mile.
Also, it is utterly ludicrous to suggest that life in a small town is more like living in the backwoods than like living in the city. You actually live in an electric town and drive on paved streets and watch television and shop in retail stores and use as much electricity as any city dwellers. You are not less industrial than a city by one iota.
MaryWorth: Lol We have one stoplight, the street lights go off at midnight and we only have 9 paved roads. Try again.
The electricity at your house does not go off at night. You are fully industrialized and use the same power as anyone.
MaryWorth: If we're going by your priorities, it wouldn't matter what people from the city want anyway. It would only matter what is good for the environment and destroying industrialization. This is the way. Like it or leave it.
No, millions would die if we destroyed industrialization. We can't all go run a trot line.
We have to find ways to make clean and sustainable industrialization that respects the rights of people and the rest of the planet. It can be done. If we used nuclear we could end fossil fuels immediately.
But, it requires a very high level of technical sophistication, which can only be supported by advanced civilization. This requires cities and governments and large amounts of cooperation among the populace to make work. In democracy, it requires protection for human rights from abuse and exploitation.
The challenges of the future will require even more cooperation. Only a few can flee to the backwoods. Most people are going to have to figure out how to live together. The Bill of Rights is one important tool for that. There is no way that "because we like it that way" is more important.
Rene: Small town life can be very different from living in the city.
It can be very different, but they aren't less consumers of industrialization. Unless they are actually out of town and without power they are every bit as much on the grid as people in the city, and every bit as responsible for the industrialization which is causing global warming.
MaryWorth: Here, we don't need much technical sophistication, we don't have the kind of slave labor problems the big cities create because we do it ourselves.
We don't have the abuse problems in the workplace because as a company, if half the town hates you, you're not going to survive as a business whereas in somewhere like New York if half the town hates you, screw em' you've got millions more people to make a dime off of.
We're not even verbally rude to each other because that kind of outburst could follow you around for months.
Are we talking about the same hellscape where the kids can't play in the street anymore and you just want to go back to the days of dancing with dinner and sock hops? Your southern state, with less than one million in total population?
You are losing track of your pretend dilemmas here.
Rene: It is a lot less compared to the city. A town of 500 doesn’t use nearly the resources that a town of 1 million does.
Yes of course, but each individual house does. They have cars and televisions and washing machines, etc. and they don't use those less than people in cities. A house with electricity that they can turn on at any time is an industrialized house and is as responsible for global warming as any other industrialized house.
We all made this together, and no one who wears clothes or drives a car or has a phone is exempt from responsibility for environmental degradation. We all have to fix it together, and a few people going off the grid is not going to help or change anything. We require massively civilized solutions.
7-30-21 8:18 • What is Fascism
So the upshot [of the song discussion] is that there is no real person willing to really defend this bullshit, only trolls who are making shit up. Why are we dividing our country over this?
FH: There are a lot of people in my life that think those same things. Many places in rural America are extremely christian like that, to the point that outsiders to the religion will be literally told they are going to hell if they don't change their ways.
They want prayer back in schools, no abortion clinics, ect... There is also a real bitterness when they speak about people from California or New York.
To be honest though, when I am in either California or New York there is a real bitterness there as well when they talk about people in Arkansas or West Virginia.
Both sides think the other one is ruining the country.
That is deliberate. Actually, capitalism is ruining the country through the strategy of stoking culture war divides. If we do not cooperate, the capitalists remain unchallenged.
That said, if you examine the actual issues, there is no evidence that removing prayer from schools is ruining the country, or that access to abortion is ruining the country, etc. It's not a matter of opinion. The forces on society can be examined and evaluated for impact.
If people cared enough to look at the facts and examine them carefully, we could simply do what works.
But, I think there is a problem with equating the two sides.
For example...there is literally no question that universal healthcare is better. Countries with universal healthcare have measurably better health. They live longer, have fewer preventable illnesses, while using less of society's resources. That is not an ideological position, the effects can be examined and evaluated and compared to alternatives.
This puts a big plus in the Democrats column. They are for this, the Republicans are against it.
There are many other issues. There could very well be pluses in the Republican column. There are certainly big minuses in the Democrats column. There are cases to be made.
But this song and the whole culture of the current right is not based on a reasoned examination of the effectiveness of particular public policies. The foundations are traditionalism and scapegoating - two big red flags for fascism. It's become problematic, to the level of insurrection.
So it's not just that everyone thinks the other side is ruining the country. Fascism is ruining the country, it is a direct threat to democracy. They aren't equivalent.
FH:Are you saying republicans are Fascists?
There is a very powerful faction of fascism in the Republican party, yes.
FH:Why do you say that? They're not for total government control, or relinquishing state's powers, the vaccine issue is proving that they're not supportive of putting the nation's wellbeing over the individual's wellbeing, and they're not trying to stop the spread of information with censoring.
I am happy to explain. Umberto Eco defined characteristics of fascism in 1995 and the current "Trumpism" faction of the Republican party meets many of them.
1. Traditionalism - "Make America Great Again" hearkens back to an imagined era of previous glory.
2. Rejection of Reason - Lacking evidence of their claims, this faction is fundamentally irrational.
3. Action for Actions Sake - impulsive destruction, like assassinating Soleimani or teargassing peaceful protesters
4. Disagreement is Treason - the opposition is the enemy - "Lock Her Up"!
5. Fear of Difference - "build a wall" to keep out "the caravans of invaders"
6. Appeal to Frustration - targeting a slipping and disgruntled middle class
7. Siege Mentality - appeal to xenophobia and other vectors of constant threat
8. Rhetorical Shifting - the enemy is simultaneously an ineffective weakling and an existential threat
9. Pacifism is Treason - aggressive counterstrike is the answer to everything
10. Contempt for the Weak - particularly classes considered weak, like women
11. Cult of Heroism - everyone is expected to 'take a bullet' for the cause
12. Machismo - disdain for women and condemnation of sexual habits
13. Selective Populism - a minority view is claimed to be The Will of the People
14. Newspeak - an impoverished vocabulary to deprive discussion of nuance
Furthermore, John Oliver examined how the main characteristics of fascist leaders apply to authoritarians like Trump, Duterte and Bolsonaro:
1. They project strength
2. They demonize enemies
3. They weaken democratic norms
4. They have the support of other fascists
As for your point about censorship, it is unnecessary; the current movement is using obfuscation to create epistemic breach. Same diff.
Lastly, Trumpists lied about winning the election and tried to overthrow the government and prevent the peaceful democratic transfer of power. They are still Big Lying and obfuscating the truth and actively working to limit the franchise. Ending effective voting is 'total government control', authoritarianism.
If that doesn't fit your definition of fascism, take it or leave it, but it's not good for democracy.
7-27-21 11:51 • Speaking of Fascism
Tippi: Using ‘Nazi’ and ‘fascist’ as insults is reckless and historically illiterate. It's dangerous to throw around the term fascism lightly, like Marjorie Taylor Greene does when she says that requiring masks is equivalent to Nazis exterminating Jews.
DM: Both parties throw the term around lightly. Democrats and Republicans are equally 100% responsible for this.
I disagree. Trump is an actual fascist.
Fascism was characterized in 1995 by Umberto Eco's seminal work, "Ur Fascism." The characteristics of a fascist movement include traditionalism, where the leader hearkens back to a previous era of glory; fear of difference, where there is a racist appeal against outsiders; and the dismantling of democratic institutions. It also includes the support of other fascists.
DM: I said Democrats and Republicans. Not Trump. He is gone, so how people define him doesn't matter anymore unless he runs again.
It is not reckless or feckless to call Trump a fascist or his movement fascist. It is accurate.
DM: I’m not sure why you’re making this conversation about Trump but this is the second time I am telling you that I am not talking about him.
Trump is out of office and isn’t the powerful point of deflection that he use to be.
I don’t care how people define him.
I'm sorry, I really didn't think you cared about Trump, I was responding to the conversation generally.
The title of the thread is, using terms like Nazi and Fascist as insults is reckless / historically illiterate. For the last four years, I have heard people refer to the rise of right-wing authoritarianism as "fascism" and I don't consider that an insult or reckless or historically illiterate because right-wing authoritarianism ("Trumpism" in the U.S.) is on the rise around the globe and a real problem. Calling it fascism is not reckless or illiterate, it is simply accurate, because this movement shares qualities of fascism like traditionalism and immigrant hate.
For the last few months I have heard people calling Biden a fascist because he wants to mandate masks or do a vaccination drive, etc., and that use of the term I would consider a mere reckless and historically illiterate insult, because it may not be your cup of tea but it does not fit the def of fascism.
So, I was responding to the idea that both sides are *equally* reckless and historically illiterate in use of the term fascist, and I would say that those calling Biden a fascist are far less accurate than those who called Trump a fascist over the last four years. In other words, I don't agree that *in the context of using the term fascist to describe opponents" that both sides are 100% responsible for this problem.
Hope that's more clear!
DM: Accurate..sure. But it's time to move on. Punish those extremists who partake in terrorism such as what occurred on January 6th and unless his faithful are causing further and similar problems, move on.
We cannot move on from the rise of right-wing authoritarianism because it is still a threat. Unless the *causes* of this rise are addressed, the movement will continue to gain traction and continue to threaten democracy with the same set of tools.
DM: Sure IT is a threat and has been long before Trump was not even a blip in the political realm.
Yet we also need to be always mindful of left wing socialists in this country who applaud and support communism and Marxism.
Thus, again, both major parties are an issue in this country.
Left wing socialists in this country who applaud and support communism and Marxism? Like who?
DM: We're going nowhere good if both parties continue to refuse to hold their base accountable. I hated Trump but there comes a point that people need to start taking responsibility for our own behavior.
The extreme bases are the problem and have always been the problem. Trump just bought everything to a head.
I can't agree that extreme bases are always the problem because in most cases, the base is moderate and only the fringe is extreme.
I would say that the current Republican party is rather exceptional in that the base is quite extreme. That is, large percentages of Republicans believe that the election was stolen, that Januray 6 was not an insurrection, etc., which is not true. Also, the Republican Party is being represented by reprehensible and/or extremists like Trump, Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan and Rand Paul. They are rejecting and demoting moderates like Liz Cheney.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are not paragons, but they do use real numbers in elections and try to stop covid, etc. They are represented by Biden and Harris, Pelosi and Schumer, all corporate moderates. The majority of Democratic voters are moderates. There is a fringe of extremists, but most people cannot name a Democrat who is truly a "communist or Marxist." As a majority, the party repeatedly rejected the slightly radical Bernie Sanders, instead diving for middle of-the-road status-quo corporate moderates like Obama, Clinton and Biden in every election.
Republican leadership could "hold their base accountable" by telling them the truth about the election and January 6 and Covid vaccines. What do you think Democratic leadership should be doing, to hold specifically who accountable, for what? That is what I'd like to know.
DM: I appreciate your views, my mind has not changed, however. IMO, both of our major parties are in DIRE need of an overhaul. One is no worse than the other and each have extremist fringes that cannot be ignored or dismissed.
Some posters feel a need to debate things back and forth for days. I don't, I'll leave it at that.
Can anyone explain exactly what the Democrats are doing that is as dangerous and immoral as what the Republicans are doing? Name names. If they really are it should be easy.
Otherwise, it's starting to look like a false equivalency that hides a massive elephant in the room.
Meanwhile, I am happy to tell you where the Democrats are failing - to help people, to hold the Republicans to account, and to hold the corporations to account. They are hypocritically taking corporate cash to avoid climate action a little longer. Yeah, pretty bad and ultimately genocidal. But, still not nearly as bad as deliberately lying about elections and vaccines, and having insurrections. They are weak but still trying to do democracy. That is an order of magnitude better.
7-18-21 9:10 • Vaccine Refusal
MT: So you are angry at the folks who made this a political issue and refuse the vaccine, but you are not angry at the AA community for not vaccinating? Why? Same result. Both groups refuse to vaccinate.
V: Why does each group refuse?
MT: Who cares each groups reasoning? The end result is the same.
Such stupidity, like getting mad at a victim for being apprehensive while giving a pass to a saboteur. Phmph.
V: EXACTLY! Perfectly stated.
7-17-21 8:01 • Stop the Burn
Dua: They should have stopped this 39,000 acre fire...they missed the chance to contain it, and now it's a monster destroying homes and what forest California has left.
Lipa: What didn't they do? What could "they" have done to prevent it?
We are not bringing nearly the force we could for fighting these fires. We should have many thousands of more people and many millions of dollars more in equipment and effort. We should bring American Military levels of concern and resources to putting them out. We should have satellite detection and overwhelming immediate response to stop any flares instantly.
Last year I drove by a big wildfire near the highway. They had one helicopter flying overhead, filling a big bag with water, dumping it and then refilling. If one water-dumping helicopter is effective, why not thirty? That might actually do something to stop spread. What are we waiting for to get serious?
Lipa: How many water bombing helicopters do you think a state has? Currently there are 83 large fires that are not contained in the USA. Resources are spread out over the fires plus they are expecting thunderstorms in other areas and lightning strikes can start more of them and they will need these same resources.
As for people - at least where I am it is another level of training beyond that of a traditional fire fighter.
If we did not have a thousand water-bombing helicopters at the ready in every state, we should have. Way past time to start the training, start ordering the equipment, get scientists figuring out the next big innovation in firefighting. The money is not being better spent elsewhere. This is what truly matters.
We have to save what we have left of our wilderness, mitigate our losses, until we can get climate under control. It's that or watch our entire planet burn and everything that supports human life disappear. Is that too much effort?
Every highway in my state of AZ, you drive along for miles and see nothing but black dead forest. It kicks the crap out of the psyche, not to mention the habitat and ecosystems that are being destroyed. What effort could we possibly make that could be too much to prevent this?
Time to get serious.
We need a new branch of the military called The Fire Corps.
And a new Manhattan Project called Stop the Burn.
Gaga: Are you serious? You do know forest fires are as old as time. Fire is just as much a part of nature as the trees and the animals. In fact, fire helps forests to regrow and to continue to be around for centuries. Fire started by lightning is as natural as it gets.
When there is a forest fire, the #1 concern should be human life. Do what's necessary to protect human life. After that, protect human livelihood (ie. homes, etc) if possible. Beyond that, perhaps it's best to just let nature take it's course.
"Watch our entire planet burn"? Seriously? If forest fires were going to burn down the entire planet it would've happened eons ago and none of us would be here.
"Kicks the crap out of the psyche"? Then maybe you need to readjust your psyche around how you see burnt forest. Maybe instead of seeing black and dead, you can choose to see opportunity for new life and new growth.
It's hard to believe you are being real with this.
These are not like the happy, normal fires which are healthy. Those fires burn the brush without destroying the trees. This is a whole new level of devastation and destruction which is not healthy OR normal.
Gaga: Really? You think fire discriminates like that? You think fire will burn brush all around a tree but decide to just bypass the tree and move on to more brush?
Wow.
Yes, that is exactly how it works in a healthy forest. When a forest has a normal level of trees and moisture, fires are not very hot. They burn through the brush without reaching high enough to ignite the living branches. Some trees even depend on this kind of fire to release the seeds in their cones. Lots of moisture usually kept the fires from growing massive.
Today's fires are not like this. The forests are much thinner and drier than they used to be. This means the ground is drier and the ground cover burns much hotter and the trees themselves catch fire and burn to death.
Dua: It's true... I have seen this firsthand when a wildfire burnt my house down in '17.
The fire stays on the ground or structures, but many whole trees DO NOT BURN UP - depends on the wind, fire fighting techniques used, and manpower available to thwart.
Since when is it normal or healthy for deserts to burn?
7-07-21 7:07 • Who Gets the Fruit?
Cris: There was a research company offering kids a $200 gift card to play with a toy. My sister says that's too much money to give a kid and the parents should get to keep it, or most of it.
Doge: Sure! Might as well get them used to the communism we're rapidly moving into. Keep it then give them $25 to spend. That's all they need. Get them used to a dictator stealing the fruits of their labor and then deciding for them how much they deserve to keep from their hard work. It'll be good prep.
Bezos gets the fruit of their labor, happier?
Cris: Well I don't care what Bezos does. I think he should treat his workers well but that’s it. I do admire those that give back to the community but I don’t consider myself a socialist.
People work their whole lives and most of the fruit of their labor goes to their employer, not the gov. At least the money that goes to the gov stays ours. It provides services to us, and we can demand accountability for how it is spent. The greater share that goes to the richest stays theirs, does nothing for society and has no accountability to anyone.
Yet, people resent the tax while worshipping the profiteer. That is exactly backwards.
Cris: But we can demand accountability from our employer individually or via unions. Also some like Bill Gates do give back to the community. Or the local business that sponsors little league and fundraisers for someone’s illness or funeral. Our Chuckie Cheese used to have school nights where a portion went to our schools.
I'm sorry, are you explaining why people hate taxes and love corporate profits? Because I still don't get it.
Cris: I’m saying there are reasons we resent taxes. For example for 2020 I don’t think the government did shit to earn mine. Billionaires like Bill Gates worked hard to get where they are.
When did Bill Gates work hard?
Cris: I’m not going to go into his life but I’d assume his money wasn’t just handed to him. Bottom line is nothing is black and white.
There is no reason to assume this. In fact Gates was born to one of the world's richest men. Yet billionaire worship is so strong in our culture that it's just assumed that their wealth derives directly from their character. Actually, the super-rich in our history were mainly those who already had the resources to exploit some major shift in technology - Gates with personal computers, Musk with electric cars, etc, just like Rockefeller with oil and Carnegie with steel before them.
Point is, they get the fruit of everyone's labor. The richest 1% own more than 90% of the whole world. About 20 guys own half. Of all human productivity, so far.
That is not "Bill Gates" working hard. That is billions of people working hard and his ilk getting most of what they do.
Meanwhile, you claim that the government "doesn't do shit" to earn taxes, but it is literally running your society...getting your mail to you, making sure that you can sue in a court, keeping the traffic lights on, running museums and parks, providing nutrition to babies, catching stray dogs, putting out fires, and a million other things that help you and keep you safe. As a democracy it is far more answerable to the will of the people than any other system in existence. If you have any defense at all against exploitation - unions, minimum wages, workers' comp, consumer protections - it is because of government enforcement.
This is literally us using our resources for us.
As long as the mythology states that we the people are the enemy and "Bill Gates & Co." are the hero, we cannot work together to save the planet while they take the rest. It may not be "black and white," but the myth is so far from reality that is it literally destroying the world. Please do not perpetuate the myth.
7-04-21 7:11 • A Losing Battle
Stimpy: Cori Bush tweeted, "When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this: the freedom they’re referring to is for white people.
This land is stolen land and Black people still aren’t free."
Ren: This land was not stolen. Native Americans lost the battle, no different then how many other countries came to be. She is a disgrace and should not represent America.
Superior firepower doesn't automatically make you right, or mean you are entitled to everything you can get.
There are serious moral questions surrounding the way this land was conquered and very little of it was on the battle field. Far more of it was through lies, broken treaties, deliberate exploitation and the massacre of innocents.
Who cares if "other countries" were also immoral thieves. Killing people and taking their land hurts them and causes suffering and is not morally upright. Calling it "stealing" is as good a word for that as any.
6-25-21 9:20 • 3 Big Mistakes
Eve: We were doing so well! What happened?
According to Umair Haque, there were - are are - three big mistakes made by Western "civilization."
The first is the Cartesian error - I think, therefore only I am. This is the rule of the white guys in charge.
The "less thinkers" - women, other races, animals - are expendable.
Slavery, hatreds, genocides and destruction for centuries, caused by the "hierarchical" arrangement with men on top.
The second is the Darwinian fallacy - competition matters most. The "winners" are the "fittest" and deserve to survive. Societies are modeled after this. Only the fittest deserve to survive.
The West has no idea of sharing or any sense of public goods.
The third is Nietzschean Nilhilism. What point has anything? There is no god, no good or bad, only ubemen and undermen, only the attainment of one absolute power over others mattered.
No one else has the resources to put everything back, because the West came and soaked it all up. Now there is nothing left to burn down but our own house.
6-18-21 9:20 • Juneteenth
BN: Hey, they just made Juneteenth a national holiday! I'm ready to celebrate! But, I heard someone say that Juneteenth is not for white people.
The ending of U.S. slavery is something every human can celebrate.
PT: I think the whole "holiday" is unnecessary and will only continue to breed these racist comments and divide our country further. Don't you know that there were plenty of white slaves too? What about the Irish?
Initially Irish immigrants were treated terribly. They were considered expendable, sent in to do dirty work too dangerous even for slaves. But they had a different trajectory. They were not generationally relegated to a permanent underclass by identifiable physical characteristics. The Irish could pass, and vote. They used the franchise to greatly improve their social situation. Within a few generations immigrant Irish rose among the ranks of power.
There used to be a drinking song with the lyric, "Now, the Chief of police is a Kelly, the Fire Chief is a Kelly, and the Mayor's a Kelly too!"
That change is how you know the Irish were never in an under caste.
6-14-21 9:19 • Critical Theories
Stet: Governors are cracking down on teaching critical race theory to K-12.
Em: That's dumb, it's not part of any ciriculum below the college level.
Stet: So what is it they actually teach?
Stet: So, I do see how that has had effects, but I wonder how many white families are truly benefitting from it now that the poverty levels of all America have risen so high.
That might be why there is backlash... because while it is extremely true in areas like New York and Los Angeles, the rest of "fly over country" that is a majority white are struggling to put food on the table and they're getting exhausted being told how much easier they have it because they're white while their kids are crying because the food pantry closed early and they have no running water available at home.
None of that makes critical race theory the problem though.
ETA: That would be addressed by critical class theory.
Stet: It makes it problematic to suggest white people as an entirety have more inherited wealth, it is only true for a certain percentage of them.
This didn't say anything about "white people as an entirety," it specifically addressed suburbs as an institution. As I added above, what is necessary for the examination of white (and all) poverty is critical class theory.
Stet:What would be different about why white people are in poverty?
Only the specifics, never the generalities.
Stet: Specifics like…?
You mentioned flyover country. Like, the specific causes of rural poverty can be different from urban poverty. The specific causes of impoverishment for one family can be different from that of another.
The generalities are the same. Poverty everywhere exists because of exploitation.
Stet: Ok, so does critical race theory only apply to urban areas of the country?
It applies everywhere race is a factor, just as critical gender theory applies wherever gender is a factor, critical crip theory applies where ableism is a factor, etc. In the case of the suburbs, critical race theory seeks to explain why they are still overwhelmingly white 70 years after desegregation. Whereas, critical crip theory might strive to explain why the suburbs were built with hard curbs instead of ramps, making traversal more difficult for some people than for others.
That is what critical theory is - noticing that these factors shape society and studying where and why.
Stet: So with these lessons, are kids growing up in America going to be taught that White males without any handicaps are the most capable of success, and because of all of these reasons the playing field must be shaped differently to accommodate everyone more equally?
Do you really just prefer hard curbs?
Stet: As someone who has had to be in a wheelchair before after surgeries, yes.
There are inclines to go up every driveway and almost always at the ends of the curb, but if the whole thing was sloped like those entrance ways it would be extremely difficult to keep the wheelchair going forward since you too would now be at a constant unevenness.
But that’s not really the essence of my question.
Oh, it is. The inclines at street crossings are relatively new. They would not be there at all if people had not make a big deal about it and passed legislation. Should we go back to hard curbs at intersections instead? Why?
Stet: While I do think it’s great that sidewalks have ramps to get up, there’s no personal aspect to this particular situation, is there?
There’s no aspect of a curb ramp that places human beings themselves into levels and defines those levels on ease of life.
The conversation was about the effect that these lessons would have on the lives of all Americans, and what these lessons would teach about different demographics of Americans.
What part of the Adam Ruins Everything video is having a negative effect on the lives of all Americans? What does this video teach about different demographics of Americans that you are having a problem with?
Stet: That is the impression I got from the video , is it a correct assessment or incorrect?
Can you please tell me what they said in the video that makes you think that kids are going to be taught that white males without any handicaps are the most capable of success?
Stet: Well, in America all of these critical theory classes break down to biases that exist in society and ease of life when coupled with the social realities of those aspects, right?
So if we break down who has benefitted from racism, white people. Who has benefitted from sexism, men. Who has benefitted from ableism, ones without handicaps.
So would students be taught that physically strong White Men are able to be the most successful until things change?
Why don't you look at what they are actually saying? This is about redlining. In fact, since it depicts a handicapped person - complete with wheelchair - as the President of the United States of America, I would say they are showing the opposite.
I think you are describing what you are afraid critical race theory is. I don't see any evidence that it actually is this.
Keller: The backlash is nothing but white guilt.
Stet: Let's say that's true, that you can take an entire race of people and boil down their questions and reasons for inquiry into a singular reason of paranoia and insecurity.
What might their motive be for willfully misunderstanding through fear?
It is only racist motives and white fragility that would lead them to ask these questions? Or could there be another reason they too feel disenfranchised in America and throughout their history in America?
Next-to-last is almost as bad. Almost.
Read more in the Archives.