I think it’s important to note that although there is definitely a trend of young men being radicalized through the “manosphere,” young women are so overwhelmingly progressive/liberal that gen z is still significantly more progressive/liberal overall than previous generations.
I believe a large portion of the electorate that vote Democrat are liberals who weren’t fans of Biden but hated Trump, and intended to vote for Biden only to prevent Trump from winning. Kamala would not lose this contingency of voters even if they think Kamala is too progressive, but she would gain new voters who previously felt unrepresented. Only anti-Trump conservatives (a tiny but admittedly growing voting bloc) might jump ship.
Kamala chose to appeal to conservatives to steal votes from Trump and because it gets her more wealthy donors. It’s possibly a winning strategy, but it is not the only one, and this one abandons the progressive voting bloc in favor of conservatives in a time where younger people are trending leftwards. This is a move that will have long-term consequences.
I disagree, I think if she had campaigned as the most progressive Democrat in history that would have sparked a massive wave of new support, but it would have put her campaign up against a lot of wealthy and powerful people. She chose the easy path by cozying up to capital interests, and this strategy gets us nowhere. At best it staves off the worst of the growing fascist movement for a time, but at the same time moves the needle further to the right. I think it’s shortsighted.
Having seen her progressive voting record I wouldn’t have expected her to campaign as a “moderate” and go back on every progressive stance she ever held either. In short, I don’t trust her to be consistent.
Or, hear me out, discard the left-right metaphor for the nonsense that it is and refer to ideologies by their names. There is no left, there are communists/socialists and anarchists. There is no center, there are liberals and conservatives. There is no right, there are fascists and “libertarians.”
The left-right metaphor is a set of training wheels, and by continuing to use them you sabotage your own political understanding.
A rising tide lifts all boats has always struck me as a strange metaphor for them to use. To me that conjures up thoughts of welfare, UBI, irreducible minimums, safety nets, etc. It seems like a great metaphor for the opposite of what they’re using it for.
They’re too out of touch to realize this hurts Kamala Harris’ campaign more than it helps.
Even worse, the liberal candidate who previously ran against him for the presidency and won is the one who appointed him chancellor in an attempt at appeasement. It was shortly after that the enabling act was passed that gave the chancellor supreme power.
Hitler was handed power by a liberal “reaching across the aisle,” with the thinking that he would just prove himself incompetent and lose support.
Why do you think fascists like strongmen? They see their power as their only means to retribution for grievances both real and perceived.
That’s some stink you can not wash off.
I think it’s been well established by reports of Trump’s pervasive stench that Trump supporters seem to lack a sense of smell. Perhaps that’s COVID’s doing, after they refused to take the vaccine. The relentless serendipity of it all makes me dizzy.
Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you’re referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I’m aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about “alpha” wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study’s findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.
People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The “tragedy of the commons” is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.
If that’s something they need then that’s something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.
These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The “lie down” movement - also “let it rot” - is similar to the “quiet quitting” movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).
Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.
Capitalism does what you’re doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.
Thank you, this looks great! Permaculture is exactly the purpose I intend to use the software for so this seems like it could be the right fit.
Thank you, this is a great resource. Some of these look promising.
historically humans aren’t usually burning down libraries on purpose.
How on earth have you come to this conclusion.
The corporations that took control of the Internet don’t want us to remember.
They both seemed to be trying to appeal to undecided “independents” who are actually just lite conservatives. I think Vance performed slightly worse but still benefitted more because he was better able to appeal to that demo and Walz humanized him instead of staying on the attack.
Kentucky’s state constitution has uniquely strong protections for public school funding, and amendment 2 nullifies all of them in one go.
Here’s the wording:
I genuinely think most KY voters don’t know what notwithstanding means, if they even bother to read that far.