Petition to not only rip down every Confederate monument in the USA, but to grind them into gravel and sell them as kitty litter. Every time you’re mucking out your cat’s box, you can imagine urine stained clumps of Robert E. Lee falling into the garbage.
Might I suggest literally any confederate statue other than Robert E. Lee?
Otherwise you might as well just knock over every military statue in general.
What if the secret appeal of shonen anime to western audiences is that it provides a vision of heroism untainted by protestant misanthropy
I only just got into anime and I’m shocked at how much “problematic” content there is. By which I mean I love it.
Anime is sneakily reinforcing traditional gender roles and nobody noticed because they aren’t using the Christian tradition to do so.
“sneakily”
In some ways it differs. Often, it’s the girls that are all colorful individuals with cool powers, and the dude, while the mostest powerfulest of all, is a generic cardboard stand-in.
Tenchi is the least interesting character in his own show.
In other ways it’s more obvious, like all the buckets of cuteness.
Some of them, yes. Others because this country lacks the political will, culture, finesse, and competency to adequately resolve issues of crime and other issues related to density and housing prices.
I’ve been seeing in professors the result of the cutoff and scoring obsession and weird focuses of the NIH grant system. If I were head of NIH, I would say “We’re obsessing about the scores of these grants to level that exceeds our ability to tell good research from bad. How bout we just take an amount of grants that’s 4x the amount we can fund, and just randomly draw ¼ of those.“
Also, when I am Comrade General Secretary of the Socialist States of America, that’s how I’m allocating capital.
> not assigning members of your government allocation funding blocks that they can bet on research outcomes
Bad post OP
What would they bet on?
I’m joking and responded without actually thinking about it, but you’d probably use a broad basket of metrics that correlate with research success/value, which are semi-randomly weighted in ways that aren’t fully revealed to the “investors” in order to wreck min-maxing and attempts to short-circuit the metrics.
Grants would be composed of funding allocation blocks from multiple individuals, and those who did well on previous research funding would obtain more of them over time.
It’s similar to a market, only if you ripped out the utility function of the market and replaced it with something else.
I’ve been seeing in professors the result of the cutoff and scoring obsession and weird focuses of the NIH grant system. If I were head of NIH, I would say “We’re obsessing about the scores of these grants to level that exceeds our ability to tell good research from bad. How bout we just take an amount of grants that’s 4x the amount we can fund, and just randomly draw ¼ of those.“
Also, when I am Comrade General Secretary of the Socialist States of America, that’s how I’m allocating capital.
> not assigning members of your government allocation funding blocks that they can bet on research outcomes
Bad post OP
I’M THE DRAGON BORN :D
I’m Dante from devil may cry 3 :o
I farm good cause I Stardew Valley’d.
I can turn garbage into weapons?
Hopefully saving the world doesn’t involve fishing because I, as a farmer that explores caves, had neglected that skill. Again.
Last played saints row and we all know how that ends (a bday party narrated by Jane Austen)
I AM REALLY, REALLY AWESOME AT FASHION!!!!
I have the powers of Being Very Rich and Commanding a Space Civilization
Noble Six. So I guess pretty evenly matched.
Underlord Oberon. So, probably hopeless, unless I can pull some Keeper Mercury-tier bullshit.
You think that’s bad? I’m a parkour runner.
Either that or a mayor. Not much help, there. Can’t remember which.
libertarians: there’s a small elite class of people that shouldn’t have such a huge amount of control over the economy
me: yah
libertarians: it’s only the public sector
me: nah
Have you ever met a libertarian?
You are describing liberals. They believe public sector rules and we need more govt.
…that’s not what this means. i explained it here: http://taxloopholes.tumblr.com/post/160617784322/the-libertarian-transhumanist-the-only
So you are against wealth?
Do you believe someone else being rich prevents you from being rich?
Do you believe their is any govt regulations that help people gain wealth?
Do you believe people do not have a right to be wealthy?
that’s not what I said.
I’m pointing out that the argument from libertarians that it’s governments making corporations push their interests against the public good is bullshit because it disregards how and what brought about basic regulation in the first place and what corporations do overseas WITHOUT regulations protecting workers.
I also said it’s ridiculous that just 8 people have more wealth than 3.6 BILLION people is a bit ridiculous, especially considering Western corporations rely on global poverty for cheap labor. so yes I have a problem with multi billion dollar corporations paying people starvation wages and pushing the narrative that they earned that money without exploitation. even billionaires admit to this which is pretty ironic.
if you already disagree there’s not much I can do to change your mind, though.
The “8 people have more wealth than X billion” statisic is a bit disingenuous if I’m right about the exact statisic you’re citing.
It’s not that we can just redistribute that wealth amongst these X billion and fix poverty, because these X billion actually have zero or negative net worth, meaning it won’t even make a dent. So that’s a completely different problem that needs a completely different solution.
I’m not sure what kind, though.
Only what is produced can be consumed. Need to keep teching up and expanding production.
Were I in charge I might also pursue development programs in stable militarily-allied countries in order to build a high-powered international bloc, transforming the national interest into one that could justify this kind of investment, buuut much of the Left would despise me.
how is it that anarchists are down to bloc up and beat the shit out of reactionaries but as soon as there’s a revolution it’s some horrible tankie shit if we throw them behind bars or reeducate them
Don’t you know? Fighting reactionaries is only ever cool if your the underdog.
ur forgetting that the wonders of mutual aid will turn the fascists into Nice Comrades overnight. like the white army and spanish nationalists did.
Don’t think anyone is pretending that overnight fascists would become Nice Comrades but I think it’s ridiculous and authoritarian to put them into “reeducation” camps as if fascists can be reeducated. Locking people up and reeducating them is useless and pointless. Anarchists would rather kick their asses and drive them out rather than brainwash them into “reeducated ” comrades. You can’t respond to fascism with liberal notions of “educating” them to think otherwise. The paranoid mind of a far right-winger can’t be reformed. I’m personally of the opinion that fascists should just be killed.
so you unfollow me for being a tankie but you think we should just go execute them instead
Killing fascists is a bad thing, you’re right. We should “re-educate” them and force them into socialist slavery because they totally won’t hate that and totally won’t just try and organize underground (like they do already). Nice tags, apparently wanting to kill fascists makes me a “reverse tankie”. This is your brain on Leninism. Lmao.
so ur logic is that since prison is so fucked up we should just murder them?? ok lol please explain how ur libertarian death squads would be less authoritarian than a prison system. I’ll wait lmao.
My logic is that fascism must always be stomped out before it is given a chance to take root. Fascism spreads very easily which is why antifa strategy is based around denying them a platform and driving them underground. It fucking works. Unfortunately it doesn’t stop the spread of these ideas, it’s a temporary solution in most cases. Killing them is better than playing antifa whack-a-mole. My argument against re-education and imprisonment is that it’s not effective or even really desirable. Why should fascist lives be protected. Call me a liberal all you want but you’re over here talking about giving literal fascists a second chance because killing them in self-defense is too extreme. Tell me, are you in favor of gun control too?
my point, which u continue to miss, is that it’s funny to me that u advocate death squads yet build ur entire politics around anti-authority lol
Yes because killing in self-defense contradicts my anti-authoritarianism?????????
you called me a tankie for saying fascists should be jailed but somehow don’t think ur a tankie for saying fascists should be killed. consistency lol.
Honestly cultural-kropotkinist is wrong here imo, but so are u. Fascists need to be countered when they organize, threaten, and fight. If a fascist sits on his porch thinking fascist thoughts, I can’t do anything about that. However, the instant that they start doing anything to actuality their aims, they deserve whatever comes to them.
Omg the discourse on the left is literally so we put politics dissidents in “re-education” camps or do we literally kill them….
THOT PATROL MEETS THOUGHT POLICE
I would bet that every person in this thread is unemployed, mentally ill and hates their parents.
If you guys are pro bono on death squads and prison camps for political prisoners, what is it you don’t like about fascism exactly?
It can’t just be repressive, everyone has to be poor as well.
It’s funny because their “revolution” is nust as imaginary as the “Day of the Rope”
With any luck.
I wonder if there’s possibly any way of imposing symmetry on the whole open borders thing, in a way that would matter.
If you decide to split the difference and make some areas open borders and other areas closed borders to that closed-borders people can live by themselves while open borders people benefit or suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then open borders people will come back six months later and demand the closed borders areas be opened immediately as a moral demand.
If you decide to make open borders contingent on paying off closed borderers with money, the open borders crowd will decry this as immoral and unfair to the global poor.
If you make anyone who comes in via open borders the financial responsibility of open border-supporters, they will decry this as immoral and unfair, because they are individuals and the people they are bringing in are individuals, and culture has nothing to do with their behavior and this is all the fault of those dity closed borderers.
However, it isn’t actually possible to solve global poverty with open borders. To meet the carrying capacity, the nations themselves must be made significantly more productive, and that means greater infrastructure and fewer children in order to concentrate parental investment.
This is not really what I meant.
I meant more like “can we impose open borders on the countries that are going to be net sources of immigrants”.
We can, but why would anyone want to go there? There’s a reason those places are net sources of immigrants.
Something something gentrification
There aren’t enough hipsters in the world, Wirehead. Plus that sounds suspiciously like colonialism..
