Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Z

ZombiFrancis

@ ZombiFrancis @sh.itjust.works

Posts
0
Comments
1696
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I didn't join the revolution to read

    Jump

  • I hear you, though I am more inclined to take a Gramscian view that cultural hegemony of capitalist/imperial core entities convert those anarchists to libertarians, or some form of compromised anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism. So I wouldn't call them anarchists.

    But it's not a True Scotsman thing for me, so I don't fundamentally disagree with that perspective.

  • Videogames you always wanted to play but they did disappointed you?

    Jump

  • I feel similarly. I can do the rhythm and timing stuff, but I just kept wanting to do something different each time and there's just no room for that in Sekiro. You play Sekiro's way and that's kind of it.

    That and the grappling hook parkour kept giving me light vertigo.

  • I didn't join the revolution to read

    Jump

  • Anarchists usually don't need the kind of deprogramming of capitalist, monarchist, colonial, or imperial systems that socialist and Marxist theories typically focus on.

  • Trump seems too comfortable with US deaths in his futile Iran war | Opinion

    Jump

  • Oh it can all be found if you look for it, no doubt, but CNNworld has the story down with the monkey with the stuffed animal story.

    APNews does not appear to feature the story on their main page at all. They're running a Today In History story on Rodney King's beating.

    USA Today does have the story on their main page, also fairly low and with the headline: "Who attacked a girls' school in Iran, and will there be accountability?"

    But mainly the pundit circles have been ignoring it. But that's what the punditry circuit does. Hyperfixate, ignore anything as needed.

  • "We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh)

    Jump

  • but that promise was broken.

    That is ultimately where my criticism falls to. I believe the US and NATO powers cynically never had any intention to back up Ukraine to ths extent being promised. Both then and now.

    Overpromising and underdelivering is a pattern I want broken.

    Like, I want my country to be subject to international law and the ICC. I would love to see many of my elected leaders arrested for war crimes. (And the whole other thing with the pedophilia.)

    Honestly I think dragging Bibi and Trump to the Hague would be one of the strongest actual deterrents of more war around the globe.

  • "We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh)

    Jump

  • But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn't sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn't that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument?

    Sending an active war aid and arms is pro-war by using that logic, yes. But that's not the point I was making, which was to armaments as a deterrent strategy. I simply don't think it prevents war, like a deterrent would or should.

    To me the pro-war aspect is not the scale of destruction or costs as it is whether pathways to peace or diplomacy are being closed off, or otherwise escalating military tensions and provocations. The destructive costs are double edged, which is the basis of my view, and why I don't support the more death and destruction rationale to deterrence.

    (For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I'm just trying to follow your logic.)

    And I don't fault that, really. There are different goals in play than preventing war once war starts.

    So like Kat's saying do with Taiwan what wasn't done with Ukraine by committing to a defense of Taiwan maximizing armament and commiting direct intervention. To me that's a pro-war position, albeit one agnostic to whether it pays off or not. (I generally think it doesn't work out long-term.) But not touching the One China Policy, however is where the Kissinger red flags started flying for me.

    (And for the record I think she's going to win and I don't have a problem with that. She'll likely/hopefully be better than who she is replacing. My current rep is a Zionist so if anything I'd take a China hawk like Kat if I could hotswap.)

  • "We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh)

    Jump

  • Sure, but:

    without touching the political One China Policy outlined in the Shanghai Communiqué

    Coupling that with increasing armaments is what spurred the Kissinger reference. It kinda constrains the trajectory to escalating towards war.

    Which, well, as we are seeing unfold with Iran now and have with the American boondoggles of the 21st century, may not serve Taiwan or the US in the long run.

  • "We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh)

    Jump

  • Ukraine is an active warzone, so that switch is already flipped.

    As a policy of deterrent though, arming a proxy nation to the teeth I do find to be pro-war.

  • "We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh)

    Jump

  • I envision a two-part credible deterrence plan that turns Taiwan into a “porcupine” too costly for the PRC to invade, by providing them with weapons to defend themselves and committing to actually defending the island if they do invade.

    It's more the military armament implementation as a pre-emptive and deterrant policy. So perhaps 'pro-MIC including war with China' might've been more technically correct? Or a less globalized M.A.D. policy? Localized?

    Nonetheless she's probably going to be no worse and probably better than the retiring incumbent at any rate, so I can even just chalk it up as an electoral strategy.

  • "We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh)

    Jump

  • [Deck] Make it make sense

    Jump

  • Turn clockwise = page number go up

    That's how I'd make sense of it.

  • Why do you think so many people on the Marxist left defend Stalinism?

    Jump

  • It doesn't, and it shouldn't be taken as such. It's just historicity.

    Pretty much between 1914 and 1946/53 you have an impenetrable web of colonial empires colliding and crashing apart. There is very little purity to be found, so accuracy is about all you can rely on. Not knowing about Litvinov, (or Pilsudski, or the Phoney War, or whatever) is fine and normal.

    Like, there are often counter/fingerpointing on this subject about Churchill being a pile of shit (and sure, super racist) but in this specific context we're still in the Chamberlain era. Pointing that out is neither support for Chamberlain nor a judgement on Churchill.

    And there's plenty about Stalin-era USSR to complain about. Lysenkoism or Beria, for instance. It's such a deeply complex subject that accuracy tends to be the most damning evidence.

  • The same people who rage against authority love moderating communities where their ideology is the only one allowed

    Jump

  • People keep setting up these Punching bars and then get mad when their patrons get Punched.

  • Why do you think so many people on the Marxist left defend Stalinism?

    Jump

  • The closest I have seen is 'Are we to believe SS death squads that they found the evidence for it in 1943?'

    So, not a good thing, and possibly just more Nazi shit, further not good.

  • Why do you think so many people on the Marxist left defend Stalinism?

    Jump

  • It is okay to be categorically wrong about a historical time period. It wasn't Molotov in that phase. Molotov replaced Litvinov, who was the foreign minister of the USSR until 1939. Litvinov was the proponent of allying with the West against Germany. (For what it is worth Litvinov likely would've signed the Pact with Germany anyway.) But Stalin supported him, and even after being dismissed wasn't even disgraced.

    The important subsequent development here is that Britain and France then actively tried to support Finland against the USSR during the Winter War while still technically at war with Germany, who was also supporting Finland. The Phoney War was a real thing that played out, after all.

    Unless these are too minor of details.

  • Visions from a parallel universe

    Jump

  • That's $37.50 well spent.

  • Why do you think so many people on the Marxist left defend Stalinism?

    Jump

  • For the most part Stalin is used to trigger the aggressive anti-communists.

    Like, there are enough "How could Hitler have won the war?" types around for me to be overly concerned with memes that defend/don't condemn Stalin.

  • James Talarico beating Jasmine Crockett in Texas Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, poll shows

    Jump

  • Kamala Harris also just endorsed Jasmine Crockett yesterday.

    So, uh... take that as you will.

  • The wife, the problem, the reason [Arcade Rage]

    Jump

  • We both work from home. We have neither excuses nor anyone to blame.

    We're just the third panel twice in a standoff with the dishes.