Skip Navigation

帖子
90
评论
776
加入于
3 yr. ago

  • Here is a transcript from a panel discussion on this topic held last year at Baltimore's museum of industry.

    https://therealnews.com/baltimores-co-ops-show-the-power-of-a-solidarity-economy

    They have a few examples represented. One is a coffee shop that the owners closed after the workers started a union, but then the union raised the money to buy it out and the owners agreed to sell it to them.

    Another is a family-owned hardware store that converted to a worker-ownership model when the owners wanted to retire because they didn't want to ever see a subsequent owner sell to a private equity group or big corporate chain.

    There're some great insights provided. The long and short is that it's a lot of work, but very rewarding for those who have the appetite for it.

  • Bigger! Shiny, high tech modern sins!

  • Agreed. Avakian is fascinating because he's so entitled in the article. If someone doesn't want to buy his product he just rails against how unfair they were to him.

    Bro: it's business. If your product were nearly as good as you claim it is, you wouldn't need to force people into using it.

    Also, the end of the article points out that Walgreens has been terribly mismanaged and is a very low-performing company, and they're still experimenting with screens, just not with Avakian. Hilarious.

  • First, I think it helps to share an old adage:

    Two Jews: three opinions.

    We're famously discursive. In any situation it should be assumed that Israelis are in a tense debate about nearly everything.

    The families of remaining hostages in particular want a ceasefire because its a prerequisite for returning loved ones (or at least rematriating their remains). Many people also recognize that the war has no honorable or defensive purpose and is tearing apart society, fomenting regional tensions, destroying support on the world stage, and placing a huge toll on reservists and their families.

    You are correct, though: as long as Netanyahu and allies are in power, every other voice is a reed in a monsoon flood.

  • Yeah, this.

  • I can't help but notice that the article describes conditions that are clearly intended to kill, cause serious bodily harm, and deliberately inflict on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

    It really seems like there's a word for that. It's weird that the article describes those conditions without using any particular word that those conditions describe.

    I normally like the Guardian, but that article feels weird because I don't know why it can't just say that Gaza's condition is that of an unambiguous genocide in progress.

  • It's an interesting article, because to be honest, it feels like an attempt to create news more than cover it. Two-hundred or so objectors is paltry, frankly. If anything, I think the lack of dissenters in Israel is a more notable point of news.

    But then again, refusing to serve and criticizing Netanyahu can be a very frightening and risky thing to do. The culture is brutal, and the head of police in particular, Ben G'vir, is a hardline fascist who doesn't tolerate challenges to the ruling government. So we'll see what happens.

  • I'd like to just clarify a point which I think @froh42@lemmy.world is making as well.

    My concern about censorship is not based on "fairness" or being sympathetic to voices I disagree with. I'm strictly speaking about effectiveness.

    Creating rules about what ideas aren't allowed to be expressed has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses that have to be understood in order for this tool to be used effectively.

    The strength is that it can slow dissemination of dangerous ideas. Restrictions on certain types of speech can be very effective for that. The weakness is that it cannot eliminate the infectiousness of an idea. Additionaly: suppressed ideas which have appeal may spread widely without opponents knowing about it, and opponents of these ideas may not develop counter-messaging that diminishes the appeals of these ideas. Lastly, restrictions on speech can create an evolutionary pressure on words and ideas to specifically find the weaknesses in the restrictions. A ban on saying certain words inherently creates a list of things you can say instead.

    Taken altogether, prohibitions on speech or ideas are a lot like antibiotics. They're very powerful and effective, but they lose their efficacy with use. And overusing them can actually lead to a complete breakdown in their efficacy. So they must be used in concert with a wide array of ecosystem health measures to limit their need.

    You might say 'Why worry? They've worked so far.' But if you do, that over reliance can lead to a catastrophic failure.

  • What's the use of that information? They have that problem now.

    It appears to be an internationally occurring problem.

  • That might be a good idea, but I think that folks need to examine fundamental factors underlying the rise of the far right and the ways in which limiting speech may be a weak remedy.

  • Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't these a massive undercount because they're only counting combat casualties and omitting the starvation and excess mortality of complete civil collapse?

    According to the Lancet, indirect deaths are typically 3 - 15 times direct deaths. So a conservative estimate is that the actual death toll is around 200k, or ~10% of the prewar population.

    It should be noted that northern Gaza is in a deliberate famine during winter. Words just fail me.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext

  • Whaaaaaaaaaa???!? /s

  • Yeah, somehow there really do be people who haven't seen bluey. Crazy. It's 2025 people.

  • I believe it means "whiner". As in one who whines and complains.

    I don't know where @CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net hails, but I just know this because I am a dad, which means I watch Bluey, and sometimes the dad on Bluey will tell the kids to "quit whinging".

  • You know, I think the reaction by conservatives to climate change is fascinating by all that it can tell us.

    First, environmental preservation has not always been a politically left issue. It's got a lean that way because it often impacts how the commons are used, but there's plenty of reasons why ecological conservation has found a home on the right in the past. And in this case, we're talking about preserving habitability and stability of our civilization. There's plenty of reasons why one could imagine this finding support of some kind on the right. Their solutions might be market-based neoliberal bullshit. Yet they're not really even messing with that stuff (at least any more). They just want to kill this whole conversation with fire and throw it in a volcano. Why?

    If you really drill down, I think the reason why people on the Christian Nationalist right in particular are trying not to acknowledge or deal with a civilizational threat despite the reckless madness involved is because they have a better understanding of what all this means for the future than most liberals or even leftists.

    It means that their favorite "-isms" -- Nationalism and Capitalism -- are both facing mortal threats if this issue is ever addressed. They'll phrase it as saying that climate crusaders want to impose Marxist open boarders and ban their very way of life. But while I don't want to validate the most absurd parts of their fearmongering, they are fundamentally correct in some sense. Any successful response to climate change is inevitably going to upend the way we concentrate power and wealth, the way we pursue economic growth, and the way we draw boundaries across which people trade and migrate.

    And most people will find the solutions quite persuasive. Why should jobs, the rich, and corporate dollars move freely, while people are trapped while they drown? Why should we watch a food system capable of feeding all crumble to protect the tastes of a vanishingly small minority of the extraordinarily selfish? Why can't we all just live comfortable, modest lives with the abundance currently being hoarded?

    If MAGA adherents genuinely believed it to be a hoax, they'd just fight for greater scientific inquiry. But all together, their actions -- though terrifying -- amount to a clear beacon signaling a recognition of the greatest weak-spot in the rise of neofacism.

    If people learn about solutions to climate change, Christian nationalists expect to lose.

    Food for thought.

  • This is so tragic.

    It must be pretty stressful to be the president of a country like Azerbaijan in this situation. What are you going to do? I'm surprised he has been this frank in his anger. Calling out Russia under Putin in a situation like this seems like it has a lot of downsides and no real upsides.

    Good for him. People shouldn't die like this.

  • Well shit