God damn. Comment hit hard. No notes. I just wish the people in the US realized that even the monarchs of Britain are being "punished" more than the equivalent rulers of our similar class structures that exist in modern day with just different names. Our "Epstein class" (capitalist class) have less punishment than modern day monarchs.
The punishment of the monarchs is to become a rich capitalist with no titles. The punishment of the capitalist is nothing.
I understand your feelings but you should place your rage at the systems and structures of white privilege. Being upset at some random old white removed believing in her privilege is not helpful.
Though it does feel good to vent out that rage sometimes. I get it.
Having been to Yellowstone I can say that that experience is ALMOST worth what she went through.
The buffalo really do just come up to your car and YES they will fucking charge you. At least this couple got to enjoy that.
Seriously, though. Spent a week at Yellowstone and could go another ten times and see new things each time. Just absolutely a beautiful gem of America and unlike any place I've been.
I think this ladies entire story speaks a bit to how modern day fascism is working and how our analysis of it is flawed in some ways when looking at the past.
Racial supremacy and the core parts of fascism are still at the root of it. However, the fact that an elderly white British couple can be subject to this form of "just doing my job" ICE agents bringing them to these conditions. I think it should be a wake up call to anyone that thinks they "won't be a target".
The current form of fascism is based on the vague notion of a "woke" or "demostic terrorist" or whatever. Any person can fall into these vague definitions.
The "first they came for the communist" in an era when everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Xi Jingping is labeled as one. Well, there is no meaning to it. You will get marked as a dissonant and be treated as such. Not even your MAGA hat will save you if you give the wrong answers. We are truly hitting the false comfort of the "loyal German" when they were asked "papers please".
I'm not talking about adventurism you twat. I'm not even talking about collective action. I'm talking about showing some emotion and anger at the very fucking least.
This passive acceptance and doomerism is so fucking boring. If you're not going to at least be outraged can people like you just shut the fuck up?
You're literally respond with the same peasant brained acceptance. No one's impressed with your apathy. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like a coward.
But go ahead. Give me another apathetic one line response. Good luck with it.
I'm kind of tired of this "acceptance" of loss. Like, I get it, I don't think it's incorrect. It's just at a certain point I think it becomes a means of a collective justification for inaction. In the same way that this fake shit from Newsom serves the same purpose of inaction.
It feels like the peasants of feudalism just accepting that their share of crop is getting reduced. "Welp, guess we'll just eat less this winter. Hope Timmy survives the cold".
I guess I'm looking for this same comment but with rage and anger. The passive doomerism needs to go. Us peasants need to be talking about the best methods for sharpening our pitchforks with every inch of crop they take from us.
At the end up the day. This "truth" is only true for as long as we allow it to be. We should remember that and repeat that truth with every inch they take.
To some corporations I'm sure. Not to the consumers that actually paid the cost of them. A lot of corporations bought surplus before tariffs went into effect. Then they raised prices as if the Tariffs were affecting them instantly. Now some will surely get pay backs and double dip in the profits.
This has been and always will be a tax on the consumer and the working class. It is nothing but capital consolidation methods and class warfare. Those loyal to Trump get exclusions and profit from the Tariffs. Those that do not are hurt (all small business and some larger corps that don't play ball).
It is a means of solidifying loyalty to the fascist state.
I would say he was prophetic. But a lot of us realized what he did during COVID. Had a minute to think and pay attention.
I don't believe her personally. But we are never changing this country if we don't accept that we need to convince racist bigoted people that they should fight for healthcare and affordable housing instead of for the the right to abuse immigrants and trans people.
You think these things are running on Windows? Lol. I don't think you could get a picture of them all standing at the same time if they were.
You get your freedom by not being confined. You get freedom by letting your enemy know that you'll do anything to get your freedom. You'll get it. It's the only way you'll get it...So dont you run around here trying to make friends with somebody who's depriving you of your rights. They're not your friends. No, they're your enemies. Treat them like that and fight them, and you'll get your freedom. And after you get your freedom, your enemy will respect you. He will respect you. I say that with no hate. I have no hate in me. I don't have any hate, but I've got some sense...I'm not going to let somebody who hates me to tell me to love him.
Malcom X
Sounds like you're actually looking for a leftist party. The only difference between an "illegal" immigrant and a productive contributor to society is paperwork.
I don't know the numbers in the UK. But in the US, the average immigrant is MORE productive and less likely to commit violent crime than the average citizen.
Simple answers. (1) Someone that's going to move to another country is an adult of working age. And (2) commiting a crime of any kind (violent or not) can result in losing a visa and being deported. The average citizen might get some minor time or have the money to get off.
If that makes sense to you. I really think you might be a leftist. You might just need to question the people trying to appeal to a nonexistent "center". They're likely trying to prevent you from understanding the left.
The "center" is usually just a means of the right trying to keep people from being progressive. The center (by definition) just works to maintain the current structures.
I'll try to explain something that is fundamental to why right wingers are incapable of understanding what leftist are saying. Then, hopefully, you can reach the answer to this yourself. Leftist aren't saying that there is no need for some form of peace officers.
Right wingers (and really most apolitical people) see the world through the lense of "Ideas". They first define the "idea" of the Police. They look at slogans and ideas like "serve and protect". They see the Police as an institution based on how it is supposed to operate. This is likely what you do. It's how we are taught to think about the structures of society from a young age. It's not unexpected to have this perspective of the world. It's comforting in a lot of ways.
Leftist, on the other hand, do not simply accept the "ideas" alone. The ideas are important. They influence how systems operate and who is given power in society. But, what is most important to a leftist are the material outcomes. Do the material outcomes of the Police fulfill the ideas and purpose that they are supposed to. Who do the Police as an institution "serve" and who/what do they "protect"?
I'll leave that up to you to think about or answer. But, the fundamental problem with trying to convince a right winger is this disconnect. They think the "idea" of Police is being attacked because that's their only understanding of them. They are not subject to their violence, they are not discriminated against by them, and they don't have empathy for those that are. They are mostly entirely disconnected from them in any meaningful material way. Maybe a speeding ticket or an uncle that's a cop and "a nice guy".
When most leftist are talking about "abolish the police" we are not talking about the "idea" of a State operated enforcement agency meant to maintain peace. We are talking about abolishing an institution that does not do that at all. Because we are looking at the material outcomes of what their presence in society actually results in.
If you can understand that. Then that's a great starting point to actually have a conversation about "the Police".
But, right wingers, they can't get that far. They are incapable of thinking that "hmmm, maybe the Police don't actually serve the purpose I think they do". You don't even need to come to that as a conclusion. Maybe, you personally think they do a good job. But questioning the default ideas of a society, looking at the material outcomes of those ideas, and then pointing to their contradictions are fundamentally what leftist do. It's, in a way, a scientific form of thinking. It is taking the hypothesis of what "Police" are meant to do and then testing it on their actual outcomes.
It's often difficult for people to do this for the current structures of society. They are what we are used to and "how could anything be any different" is often the rebuttal to leftist ideas.
However, it's really obvious to apply this form of thinking to the past. Feudalism, Slavery, Woman's Suffrage, Apartheid, etc. Its easy to look back and say "well, clearly those things were bad". But, at the time, there was the same right wing though attempting to prevent progress by defending the "idea of the King" or "the idea of White/Male supremacy".
Sorry. This was longer than I meant it to be. But sometimes I gotta type out what I believe and why I believe it to solidify my own understanding of it. Hope the rant was worth a read.
But, if you can understand this, you'll see it a lot. You'll see a conservative defending the "ideas" of something and using everything they can to deny the criticisms of the outcomes. It's why they get stuck on "slogans". They live in a world of Ideas alone.
Did you read it? Did it advocate for "abolishing the police" or did it talk about a specific police policy that was making police interactions more dangerous for citizens?
Like, we can talk about THAT if you want. But, did you notice you linked to something that really had nothing to do with abolishing police or even directly reducing police? It's talking about not expanding and hiring more police to prevent victimless and nonviolent crime. A policy that has lead to increased police violence towards citizens.
See how even when you try to link and point to someone on "the left" explaining something you're not even understanding it.
What point are you trying to make? You didn't even mention or talk about the specific policy she is talking about.
You barely have to dig into it man. It's literally the first part of the letter. My initial response to you was literally because you don't actually understand what "the left" believes and you're just arguing with a slogan. Thanks for proving my point.
You sound really dumb when you summarize an entire political movement based only on the slogans that would be put on signs.
"Abolish the Police" is a catchy slogan you can put on a sign. A rational person would see that sign and think "wow, that seems pretty radical. I should look up that group or go talk to that person to learn more. How would you even do that?"
To learn more about what people are saying it's usually a good idea to go talk to that group. Especially, someone that speaks for that group and can outline exactly what they believe.
You, on the other hand, seem to go the opposite route. You seem to go listen to and ask the people or listen to the news media that oppose those groups with the signs. And that's why your entire knowledge of what "abolish the police" means is so one note. You never actually looked into what that means beyond a slogan. You literally think it means those people want the government to overnight create a law that says "no more police".
Of course you think it's silly and irrational. You have no idea what those people are actually advocating for. You're arguing with a slogan.
It's the same idiots that go "well, all lives matter". Because they summarize an entire political movement by a slogan, listen to the people that oppose it for an explanation, and then critize it without ever understanding it.
It's amazing how many people form their entire understanding of "the left" in this exact way.
Will have to have a listen. Is it talking about today, the rise of it in the 1920s and 30s, or both?
Blackshirts and Reds by Parenti is one of books I recommend people to read today to understand how liberals turn to fascist aliances. So much parallel between the past and today.
I think that's how he intends it. But a "higher purpose" is usually related to belief in something beyond your short life. Whether it's leaving a lasting impact on the world after you are gone; or connecting to some spiritual purpose that extends beyond your life.
To me I'd say my "lower purpose" just sounds like something I need to get out of bed in the morning. Like, making coffee or something.
AI trying to write text in an image is like trying to write your name in cursive while having a stroke.
Just waiting for the inevitable day Kash becomes the fall guy for something. The tears he cries about just being a podcast host over his head that didn't know what he was getting into. I'm just waiting for that beautiful day.
Great Video on the exploitation and theft of artists labor through AI.
Woodie Guthrie with an original "Fuck Cars" satire song back in the 1940s.
Not being able to control anger is definitely bad for health. Letting out anger at things that should make you angry. That's just human and healthy.