Columbo would never say that shit.

That is what is fair to expect historically speaking, yes. Oppressed groups resist, privileged groups appropriate resistance when it’s safe to do so.

“Leadership,” well, here’s hopin they find a way to materialize intellectual property and speculative investment, since that’s like, the only metrics they use and neither of them are actually, y’know, real.

Right, of course, for the Russian imperialism, and nothing else, especially nobody else’s imperialism, that’s for sure.

🇮🇷1 - 🇺🇸0(🤮)

Removed by mod

My brother in Christ, are you about to argue that the decisions to continue with extractive capitalism was somehow made in an egalitarian, democratic way wherein these people had the power to stop it? That’s going to be fascinating to read while simultaneously arguing that this has happened because of hierarchal stratification of power.

In all seriousness, I think it is also telling that you’re willing to support the devaluing of an entire group of vulnerable (most boomers are not US Senators) people and also think that the negative ecological and climate impacts of capitalism are a problem only because it effects you. Many liberals will resort to ecofascism like what you’ve expressed because they are not actually concerned about human life, they are just angry that this system hasn’t benefited them like it did past privileged groups. Even if there was some “sustainable” way that this system could exist, it would still do so through the destruction of indigenous relationalities to the land they exist on and the transformation of every environment around capitalist imperatives. It wouldn’t be “fixed” just because you wouldn’t have to worry about carbon emissions.

Also, “scientists?” You mean the ones that also produced disinformation and were complacent in the disarmament of academic institutions as sites of political disruption? Anyone who works at a university knows that STEM people are some of the most common traitors and collaborators, and that’s actually something they chose to do and be. Boomers vaguely are far less responsible for climate change than the fucking engineers who designed the fucking machines to do it with, or the shills who publish counter-disinformation and erode public trust in those institutions. Why not say that “scientists” should pay for climate change because a substantial number of them have been invaluable in its facilitation? Would that seem a bit silly?

In what possible way is that a fair statement? It’s so strange how people on Lemmy get so bloodthirsty when they think they’re saying something critical.

The reason we talk about systems is to avoid exactly this kind of conclusion where genocide is a favourable option just because there’s an association (not “hey it is this group specifically and exclusively”) between any particular group and any particular behaviour.

Maybe that’s why you don’t sign up for their murder squad.

Well deserved.

“If you prefer something that remains within liberal institutions, state-level movements to define AI as price fixing would likely have an easier time to gain popular traction since AI is widely hated at this point. This isn’t to say you can’t complain without volunteering to shoot Delta’s CEO, but just that responding to this with, “the govt isn’t doing anything which means nothing can be done,” exemplifies the sort of learned helplessness that characterizes American neoliberal politics at a street level.” from my first comment ^

No, I said the exact opposite of that the first time. You are choosing to not excercise the power at your disposal, stop acting like you’re powerless. Nobody is telling you to do a “lone wolf” operation, they’re telling you that this work requires actual, y’know, work. That means, yes, taking time out of your responsibilities to get involved, to contribute what you can, and at the very least, not promoting defeatist and fatalist arguments that only work to appeal to apathetic and privileged liberals. No, that is not without understanding of the pervasiveness of US surveillance, and you really aren’t in a position to act like you understand this more than I do after being unable to comprehend the clearest language I could apply multiple times.

You want to do nothing because it is more comfortable? That is of course allowed and encouraged by the state, and you’d be like every other lib on this site once they realize the gravity of this situation, but then you can’t act entitled to tell others that this is inevitable.

No, dude, you can’t say “duh” when you have misunderstood multiple times now. I am saying to you that you cannot rely on “electing progressives,” and being vocal in your town, even if those are tools you also cannot discard. Liberals like this tend to have difficulty understanding politics outside of the institutions that they have been raised to believe are synonymous with politics.

Brian Thompson’s shooting was a political act in the same way that voting, rent strike, and mutual aid foodplans are. Yes, the liberal state is going to punish you for not abiding by the sensibilities that it finds favourable, which is also a good indication that if you are not punished by it, you are doing something to its benefit. I know you are likely to be harassed, injured, or even killed by law enforcement if you challenge this system, and you should learn to accept that risk if you really want this to change. Reliance on liberals to fix their own system has failed, and there is no longer time to wait both because the conditions are worsening globally and their responses to those worsening conditions will be authoritarian, as you seem to recognize.

Yes, my comment was pointing out that the exact mentality you just expressed again is a form of learned helplessness. You do not need to defer to the US federal govt to challenge corporations; especially so if, as you said, it has dropped the veil that it was going to do anything in the first place. Don’t get disappointed when Dems don’t do anything themselves – as they have shown many times – since they are, afterall, a neoliberal party that has also participated in or facilitated the erosion of US business regulation and antitrust enforcement. You’re going to be exercising your power more effectively by dedicating your time and hope not to their political victories, but getting as involved as you can in local movements that typically have much more immediate and effective results.

I’m not sure if that kind of defeatism is useful, but I understand why you’d resort to it. I think a better way to articulate this is, “the means of recourse we agree to use is no longer effective.” I also really don’t know if small businesses can be regularly trusted to be considerate of ethics. Under a capitalist system, this behaviour is not only allowed but encouraged since it is fundamentally an unethical way to organize.

Luigi is in the news recently, and it’s worth noting that United Healthcare rolled back some aggressive claim denial policies when the safety of its executives was threatened. There are many extralegal options available in terms of sabotage or, as other users in this thread has mentioned, staging demonstrations on planes that are priced on this model to disrupt plane travel, or starting protest campaigns at corporate buildings, homes of executives, etc. If you prefer something that remains within liberal institutions, state-level movements to define AI as price fixing would likely have an easier time to gain popular traction since AI is widely hated at this point.

This isn’t to say you can’t complain without volunteering to shoot Delta’s CEO, but just that responding to this with, “the govt isn’t doing anything which means nothing can be done,” exemplifies the sort of learned helplessness that characterizes American neoliberal politics at a street level.

Could you imagine? Having art and media freedom hindered by the bigoted, imperialistic values of an authoritarian regime?

Anyway, hope this doesn’t effect the Battlefield series. 😔

Because “progressive” is itself a more liberal term with its basis in inevitable, linear societal development. It often functions to naturalize the continuation of a liberal-capitalist on the assertion that “progress” (which can be either the institutionalization of social justice values or economic growth, depending on the period) is inevitable except when impeded by bad actors “misusing” what is fundamentally a stratified and violent system.

Unsurprisingly then, socialism is not very compatible with this basis save for the oftem-shared (though not necessary) idealized arc of social development and the more colloquial understandings of “progress” that are more in reference to a vague sense of social justice and its association with the more egalitarian, collectivist politics socialists subscribe to. Since socialists are also often quite mired in the linguistic specificities of political ideologies and rhetoric (for good reason), it would also create complications where further alienation of this word from its liberal use while maintaining its underlying political and social meanings could put socialist values even more at risk at appropriation by “progressive” liberal thinkers or politicians.

What you’re describing is exactly that, the process by which liberals appropriate potentially challenging ideals and politics into their logical frameworks and effectively disarm dissenting movements by forcing them to integrate liberal values into their talking points if they wish to negotiate at least a marginally “better” chance at the adoption of their politics. We are living in the consequences of this when Democrats can claim ownership over queer and anti-racist politics while they consistently erode the rights and securities that those groups gained through more radical and disruptive politics than what is currently tolerated by them.The current wave of trans genocide in the US is very much a consequence of the liberal adoption of queer rights and social justice into their political rhetoric and platforms performatively, and therefore removed from the fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-liberalism elements of anti-heteronormativity and anti-patriarchy.

What you’re talking about may seem to make sense intuitively --adjust the language to something with less propaganda baggage – but the problem is that this has failed multiple times in less than a century, and “Americanized Socialism” is already something Democrats have established when they argue that basic welfare liberal policies are somehow “leftist” policies. Since we all must be conscious of the coming genocides liberals 100% intend to commit in response to climate change, it is even harder to argue we have time to do anything else but clearly delineate their politics from what must be done in reality.

Yes, that is a very common fun fact about these particular phones. It is also the case that it is one of the only mass production phones that has support for “deGoogled” Android OS’s, and therefore is unfortunately a contender for those of us who look for that. Pixels are unfortunately also the best option still.

Same question for you then: what OS?

Is that on their version of Android or e/OS? This is the exact thing that has kept me from even coming close to purchasing one of these without handling one first.

I don’t do either of those things tho

Uh, twenty years ago? Why’s that?