Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

axelkatten asked:

Regarding voter suppression, it's not the ID Laws themselves that creates the issue (even though it's a solution for a problem that is extremely rare), it's in conjunction with limiting days for early voting, closing down DMV offices in areas of certain populations, onerous requirements to obtain the IDs in either the costs of registration, time/transportation to get to the offices or obtaining the necessary documentation. This while they also oppose measures to help register people better.

diarrheaworldstarhiphop answered:

my concern was that, is that really quantifiable evidence of fascism?

its more a symptom of plutocratic classism with intersection with racism.

the aim of Voter IDs is not to coalesce power into the hands of one leader and the absolute control or establishment of strict order of society… but to diminish the capacity of the more populous, poor of the country to influence the affairs of government that threaten to undermine the state granted privileges of the wealthy.

They wouldn’t want to totally control the poor and the minorities or how they live, they would actually prefer to preserve the freedom they feel the poor enjoy, but only greatly reduce their share in governance. The rich care so little for how the poor and minorities in the country go about their lives, they only care if it gets in the way of their own interests

Calling it fascist and likening it to nazis and shit just obfuscates that and makes it all the more difficult in addressing and fighting it.

[mitigatedchaos]

The Republican Party has had a tough time bridging the gap to minority voters - and it will likely continue to do so for a long time.  As the Demographic Destiny™ sought by the Democrats through mass immigration dwindles their power base, the Republicans will need to win over larger and larger shares of whites to remain in power.

…and they can do that, to a degree.  We won’t like the side effects, but, surprise, I’m not in favor of mass migration.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[genderfight]

It was fun reading through that OP thinking “well, this seems like a cool way to just remove poor people from an area while possibly dodging regs about affordable housing, but I will withold judgment until I see what benefits you think that captures” only to to realize that those were the benefits.

Imagine being so evil that you spend your days thinking up cool new ways to help the wealthy avoid contact with the poor while simultaneously saving them (the wealthy) money (which they, definitionally, have plenty of).

Fuckin’ imagine.

[wirehead-wannabe]

I think there’s a difference between wanting the rich to segregate themselves off vs accepting that it’s going to happen and trying to minimize the damage.

[genderfight]

Unless I’m missing something, the proposal at hand exactly and only minimizes damage to the wealthy? And for a value of “damage” which means “spending money on housing?”

Come at me with a solution that helps those already subject to disproportionate risk and we’ll talk, I guess.

[mitigatedchaos]

Become Singapore.

Oh, sorry. Let me try again. You can give people money, but you have to actually take it away if they misbehave. A good program would be to lower the minimum wage while issuing hourly direct-to-employee wage subsidies - thus making the effective wage received higher while simultaneously increasing available jobs and negotiating leverage for low-income workers. This has some backing from economists and can be rolled out and tested incrementally. The Democrats should be hype for it but the Democratic Party is dumb.

There are other factors, like dealing with the simultaneous under/overpolicing, punishing wayward children *before* the end up on the wrong end of a police officer, and so on. Get crime under control and you can fix the zoning laws. Fix the zoning laws and you can build cheaper housing where it’s needed.

None of this will actually happen though because the Democratic party is about as much about helping the poor as the Republicans are about saving money.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[reasonandempathy]

4chan: “Yo, we can totally make mainstream media think the OK sign is a hate symbol”

ADL: “That’s not a hate symbol”

PJW: “HA!  WE MADE THEM SAY IT ISN’T A HATE SYMBOL!”

[neuroticpantomime]

It’s also rather arbitrary and just seems like a dumb and meanspirited game the reactionaries always “win.”
Like obviously the okay single is too universal to be taken by white supremacists. But if a bunch of them, and fellow travelers, start using it as a “joke,” it’s asinine not to notice.

Like with Pepe, it’s just a funny cartoon. But these days if I see a Twitter avi with him, I’m not gonna be surprised if it’s some anti-Semite who screeches “cuck” at everyone. Yet, one either acknowledges that association and “falls for it,” or they don’t and say that Pepe, etc aren’t hate symbols, then they’re also “falling for it.”

[reasonandempathy]

it’s the right-wing application of the Kafka Trap.

“Liberals say everything is offensive!” “That’s not offensive” “See, they had to reply to it because dumb liberals were offended!”

vs

“You’re racist!” “I’m not racist” “You saying you’re not racist just means you’re racist!”

[mitigatedchaos]

It’s because everyone is so sick and tired of it, so they decided to make dumb left wing virtue signalling, that used to be a way to attack the right with an ever-changing array of fashionable terms, into an exploitable vulnerability. They’re also taking advantage of dumb Antifas punching anyone who isn’t a real white nationalist.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

You know, I do think this attitude has contributed to the rise of the Alt Right.  If they’re going to call you racist no matter what you do, then it doesn’t matter if they do.  You might as well think forbidden thoughts, say forbidden things, speak the dark speech they so fear to punish them for their intent to punish you for even the most minor transgressions.

Of course, you could also go by your own conscience and not try to build a racially-homogenous ethnostate, but that lacks the same trolling value.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

Well, NIMBYs killed microhousing in Seattle which was going to be the kinds of small, affordable apartments that people could actually afford to live in.

Yeah, that’s one of the problems with the whole “but that isn’t REAL Capitalism!  We need to deregulate!” things.  The regulatory capture that corrupted the existing process will also corrupt its dismantling unless you fix it, and Capitalism pays people to subvert public ownership of the state.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[ranma-official]

Hot take: the problem with homelessness does not boil down to “count amount of homeless, count amount of houses, if the latter is larger, then capitalism is intentionally making people homeless and will collapse if they aren’t, therefore get rid of capitalism to instantly solve homelessness”.

Pay attention to the fact that there are much more homeless people per capita in cities than in half-abandoned villages, and you will realize that the problem isn’t just not having a home, but not having a home where you want to have a home, to the extent where they would rather be homeless in a city than landlords in a village.

There are obvious easy solutions, like falsely​ reporting that you have solved homelessness while carting people out of the city (adjusting visibility), or forcing people to live in certain places regardless of where they actually want to live (adjusting mobility), but they don’t fix the actual underlying issue.

Policy changes to address this are going to be very expensive, unless you want to reduce safety restrictions for houses, which you should not.

And not expensive because robber baron capitalism pigs, but expensive as per LTV - construction is a man hour hungry process.

[mitigatedchaos]

You have to make other changes that allow you to fix the zoning laws, but even that only gets you so far, so basically this.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

What price are you willing to pay to solve those problems, ideologically?

If it is necessary to become Singapore, are you willing to do this?

[bariumsulfateacetone]

What do you mean by “become Singapore”?

[mitigatedchaos]

For instance, though this is less Singaporean, suppose that the things social conservatives complain about are true (outside of LGBT), they just happen to apply mostly to lower-class communities, because upper-class communities can survive that level of dysfunction (thanks to money).  What would you do?

Or for something more genuinely Singaporean, are you willing to have convicted vandals publicly caned?  Are you willing to use conscription for young men?  Will you allow schools to punish or exclude problem students?

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[mitigatedchaos]

The Libs have confused Nationalism for a disease because they witnessed auto-immune dysfunction, but once a nation falls below a certain level of Nationalism, it is indeed difficult to raise an army for its defense.  

Nationalism is not yet dead in the United States, but it is aspirationally among much of the Left/Libs.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[calyxofawildflower]

Hey let’s destroy the pernicious myth that preteens were regularly marrying in medieval and early modern Europe and were having children as young teenagers. It’s just not true. Church records show the typical age people got married was around 18-23. Sure, around a third of brides were pregnant at the time of their marriage, but premarital sex was actually completely fine in medieval and early modern Europe if the couple intended to marry. (Oh look! Another historical fact the Victorian period completely mangled!)

Very young girls were not having babies in medieval times, people. The only people who ever bring this non-fact up are paedophiles looking to defend their dangerous paraphilia. So cut it out. Stop spreading this myth. It’s not historical, it’s not factual, it’s not true.

[calyxofawildflower]

By the way the texts in support of these facts are here and here.

[magister-amoris]

“Emerging evidence is eroding the stereotype of medieval child marriage. Goldberg and Smith’s work on low- and lower-middle-status women has refuted Hajnal’s argument for generally early marriage for medieval women. Even Razi’s ‘early’ age at marriage for girls in Halesowen hardly indicates child marriage, as a large portion of his sample married between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two… .  Goldberg has offered evidence from fourteenth and fifteenth-century Yorkshire showing that urban girls tended to marry  in their early to mid twenties and rural girls married in their late teens to early twenties, and both groups married men who were close to them in age.” (Kim M. Phillips, Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, c. 1270-1540, p. 37 (x).

Bolded for emphasis.

[calyxofawildflower]

Reblogging this as a reminder since I just saw another long thread on a social media website about how “the stigma of marrying at age 13-15 is recent”. No it isn’t, you’re just a pedophilia apologist.

[mitigatedchaos]

This is fascinating, since “well the Medievals married that young” is used to wave off some of the side-effects of polygamy in certain foreign cultures today.  But if that isn’t true, then that means culture or religion is responsible and not just economics like we were led to believe.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

I’m paying more attention to ideological contradictions…

But what does Liberalism become when it starts saying “yes, some cultures are better than others,” and “yes, some groups practice inbreeding at higher rates than others, and this is terrible,” and “changing demographics through immigration is a feasible angle of attack that can be used in democracy”?