Pretty sure the far left doesn’t believe in currency or private ownership of goods at all. The far left are communists and anarchists who eschew capitalism entirely. The policies you’ve described are centre-left. The Overton Window in the US has shifted so far to the right that they don’t actually know what far left even means anymore.
Thanks for elucidating the link clearly there; I can now see how it’s relevant to the discussion.
Being that I’m not black, nor am I from the US, I wouldn’t want to assume what assumptions black people in the US make when code switching. I’m happy to be educated, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming the intent of people with whom I don’t have a shared experience. That tends to be a recipe for misunderstanding.
To be extremely clear, I was never challenging the core premise that the other commenter was trying to make. I even made mention that I did not disagree with the point being made. My intention was to suggest that the basis upon which the argument was being made was fallacious, and therefore open to be easily challenged or weaponised for purposes I’m sure the other commenter did not intend.
I went so far as to suggest that the argument should be framed around the insidious nature of patriarchal hegemony as I personally believe that argument stands up to scrutiny in a far better way. Speaking about the lack of justice many women face in this regard and therefore having to choose to safeguard themselves is also a strong argument. Basing it upon the idea that generalisations can be made about populations and those within those populations to whom it doesn’t apply shouldn’t be upset by that is a very weak argument for the reasons I stated.
I get the sense you might have misconstrued my intent - an understandable notion given that we’re communicating via text only - and might believe as though I have attempted to dismantle the argument entirely by falsely equating the experience of women with those experiencing racism. I do not wish to do so, as that would be a fallacy in and of itself. I merely tried to show that the reasoning used was clearly open to challenge and should be reflected upon.
My apologies for not noticing that you were a different commenter; that’s a fault of my own perception.
Some logical fallacies have names, but by the sheer nature of logical fallacies not all have yet been named. As the field of logic has developed over time, common fallacies have been given specific names, but that does not discount that there are logical fallacies that have not yet been named. A logical fallacy is merely the use of faulty reasoning in the formation of an argument. I highlighted the reasoning of an argument and pointed out how that reasoning was faulty, ergo I was drawing attention to a logical fallacy. Being unable to specifically name the type of fallacy does not render it to a state where the reasoning is no longer fallacious.
I am well aware of what code switching is, however noting that your point was extraneous to the discussion at hand, I didn’t bother to address it. What does code switching have to do with what has been discussed? I spoke of the reasoning being used (making accusations of a group not reflecting the individuals of said group) to form an argument as being able to be weaponised in bigotry. I’m unable to see where code switching becomes a relevant point, and would appreciate that being elucidated.
Just pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument; not disagreeing with your overall point. If you seek to be persuasive, form your argument on points that can’t be so easily dismantled. Framing the argument from the perspective of patriarchal hegemony would be far more advantageous as it can’t then be weaponised by those who would seek to be bigots.
I’ve made no accusations towards you about being racist because I don’t know anything about you; I wouldn’t do that without evidence. It might be worth reflecting on why you felt I did so.
Rule of thumb, if someone critiques an identity that you are a part of and the critique doesnt apply to you then its probably not about you.
Try telling that to victims of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry. It’s not a particularly sound piece of advice.
Martin Harris dum-da-dum
The illusion… YOU’RE QUEER AS FUCK Do I want to be her, or be with her? …of free choice.
I mean, he’s a technocrat through and through. Always has been. Sometimes you need a stint of a technocrat to get into the nitty gritty.
Then again, he’s not my PM so I’m probably talking out my arse about the situation. I’m far less clued into domestic Canadian politics than the average Canadian.
From an Australian perspective: I agree. I was a foster care case manager for a fair while and whenever I was looking after kids in public I was hyperaware of being accused of something, but I never was. Not even weird looks or glances or anything like that. On the contrary, random women would often compliment me on being a good guardian for the kids because I’d love to muck around and play with them rather than just watch while they played.I slowly deconstructed that fear over time and am in a much better place with it now.
They ain’t monkeys.
Very well put.
This is the correct response. Social media, as a construct, is not evil and dos not do harm to anyone. The commodification and commercialisation of social media by capitalistic companies is what has caused the harm we see today.
All of the harms and evils of social media can be boiled down to a single concept: the algorithm. Because algorithmic recommendation of content wants to encourage people to stay on a platform (for capitalistic reasons), and the most enticing and attention-grabbing content is hate-content, these companies have forced hate-inducing concepts down the throats of people in an endeavour to make more money and destroyed individuals and families/friends in the process.
If we regulate the algorithms, we regulate the harm without disempowering anyone. We can, and we should, regulate algorithms on social media to turn it back into what it was 20-odd years ago - a measure to keep in touch with people you know or care about.
I had like four false starts where I barely left White Orchard, but then I was in just the right headspace and spent the next few months completing every single quest and DLC in the game. It just suddenly ‘clicked’ for me. It may do so for you at some point.
Honestly, while Booking.com acted shittily here, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who buys a home and does short-term rentals. Every investment vehicle has risks, and this woman copped the short end of the stick when it came to the risk associated with her investment choice. She chose to purchase a basic human need and try to maximise her profit from it at the expense of the average person trying to buy or rent a house and, if she didn’t want the risk of this happening, she should’ve chosen a less risky investment like bonds or a term deposit.
Landlords are bad; fuckwits who own short-stay rentals are far worse. The market distortion they create hurts so many people in so many ways. Frankly, I hope she takes this as a sign she should just sell the property and move on to something else.
As an Australian I had no idea how ubiquitous WhatsApp had become elsewhere before travelling. I downloaded it for the first time on a trip to Europe because I literally couldn’t contact certain providers otherwise and the only other time I’ve ever used it was when I was in India and was faced with the same dilemma. It was a real culture shock.
I, and everyone I’m linked in with here in Australia, only use WhatsApp to communicate with relatives overseas or don’t use it at all. We all just tend to use SMS or regular phone calls here.
Care to point to any reports that other nations are viewing those other Western countries poorly as a result of Trump’s actions?
Securing the Strait of Hormuz seems to be self-interested actions by those nations; an attempt to reduce the impact of higher oil prices on their own economies. It’s a far cry from the Western world following the USA into Iraq with boots on the ground 20-odd years ago.
Trump is eroding the idea of a USA-led Western bloc. Canada’s PM Carney is leading the charge to create new middle-power blocs to establish credibility outside of the USA’s influence. I’m yet to see reports that those measures are being viewed in a negative fashion by the rest of the world, but I’m happy to be corrected.
I sincerely doubt that’s her. Apparently she still posts on reddit (that I’ve heard; haven’t been back to that cesspool in over two years) and this person’s comment history contains nary a single poem.
Yes, and the vast majority of these memes referenced fall into the former category and not the latter. Obsession and compulsion over concepts like ordering can be a clinical symptom; preferring order is a pretty basic human condition.
This is why posts on brainrot platforms like TikTok have so many people believing that they’re neurodivergent for having preferences when they’re confusing having preferences for conditions that cause immense psychological anguish and dysfunction.
It’s like the classic situation where someone says “yeah I’m pretty OCD when it comes to _” when they have NO FUCKING CLUE what it’s actually like to live with such a disorder that impacts every aspect of your life in a quite debilitating way.
Has he really damaged Western credibility, or is he only damaging the USA’s credibility? I’ve not seen reports that Trump’s behaviour is impacting how others feel about Canada, France or Germany. Trump’s behaviour really only reflects on the global opinions of the USA, as other countries and their populations are generally intelligent enough to understand that he is only elected by one country; only represents one country; and is only the product of the population of one country.
YSK that this varies significantly from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so stating this without identifying the specific area to which it pertains is misleading.