Yes, it is. You’re upset about being shown an anti-racist message, and the alternative to that, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that you will be shown an advertisement in the same space. So it’s 100% accurate to say that you dislike seeing an anti-racist message so much that you’d rather be shown an ad.

Oh, I see. Your problem is that you’re concerned it’s taking up space… a space that would otherwise be filled with an advertisement trying to sell you something. Interesting.

When did, “End Racism” become a controversial political statement? 🤔

Seems more like the standard fascist approach to me. It’s probably not going to stay government owned.

1. Demonize a minority group

2. Government takes control of businesses owned by members of that minority

3. Government gives control of the business to (typically larger) businesses owned by the dominant group, allowing them to artificially produce growth (what Zucc is likely aiming for)

4. Narrow the scope of who is accepted in the dominant group, move on to the next minority, and repeat.

This is why communists often describe fascism as “capitalism in decay.” Because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, it becomes harder and harder for companies to find new ways of producing growth, and have to find methods that aren’t involved with actually increasing productivity, which is where you get enshittification. The fascist economic solution is obviously unsustainable, it’s like eating your own arm, but corporations that are desperately focused on short term growth (the vast majority of them) will happily sign on.

Socialism, otoh, is not about finding more stuff to feed into corporations, but, upon reaching that point, transforming the economy to remove the need for endless growth through nationalization. But socialism is not synonymous with nationalization, especially when the nationalization is selectively targeted and (most likely) temporary.

Putting aside everything else, approximately when do you believe that happened?

As much as we might criticize the whole, “End of History” idea, I feel like the 90’s was the last time Americans had anything like that kind of optimism. There was a feeling that we were entering a new age of international cooperation, and although I was only a child that was something I really believed in. But we soon found new conflicts to be embroiled in a the dream has died and was proven to be foolish and naive, and now everyone across the political spectrum is highly cynical.

I’m sure that there are many cynical people in China too, but I can hardly remember the last time I saw someone who wasn’t cynical when it comes to politics. Whether or not it’s naive, it hits me on an emotional level.

China hasn’t had a war in over 40 years.

Tbh, I was shocked. Much as I’m sympathetic towards China, but I still usually look at it through a lens of realpolitik, like, “Of course they’re vying for dominance like everyone else, but at least they’re doing it through economic development instead of wars, and it’s better if there are two major powers instead of one.” Maybe that cynical perspective is more realistic, and maybe XHS users aren’t a representative sample of all Chinese people, but still, the fact that so many of the replies were so hopeful and internationalist was genuinely moving to me.

Link

Mandatory military service is the one case where accelerationism might possibly make sense. The fact that the military is made up of volunteers makes it harder to radicalize, and people are more willing to support war because, “The soldiers chose to be there.” Go ahead, rip people away from the comfort of our homes, give us guns and training, and tell us we have to go risk our lives murdering brown people on the other side of the world in pointless conflicts in service of corporate interests - it’s a bold strategy Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for them.

I oppose the draft because I wouldn’t want to subject myself or others to that. But at the same time, I dare them to try it.

Cruise ships sometimes have repositioning cruises where they go one way across an ocean to start operating in another region, and they can offer significant discounts. I’m sure there’s cheaper ways but it’s an option.

In the long term, yes. The bourgeoisie are rich and comfortable with no desire for a war that could jeopardize their position. However, they have lots of financial incentives for military spending because it’s rife with corruption. As such, they do a lot of saber-rattling to make WWIII seem like a genuine possibility, while also fighting in proxy wars around the globe.

But the problem is, they’re playing with forces beyond their control. If you have a generation raised on constant propaganda to genuinely hate other countries, then all it takes is a couple people in the wrong positions at the wrong time who aren’t in on the game. Right now, the rabid dog is on the leash of the bourgeoisie, but the gamble they’ve been making is that they can keep pumping steroids into it forever and never lose control.

Furthermore, wasting all this money on war and militarism has allowed China to emerge as a credible threat to their global hegemony. China is sitting back and focusing on domestic economic development, and they are winning the peace while the US burns itself out. What happens when the only area in which the US has an advantage is the military? Are people really going to accept becoming #2, or are they going to force a confrontation? Given that we’re talking about Americans, who are 1) Riled up on propaganda, 2) Preoccupied with being “#1,” and 3) Unused to experiencing the effects of fucking around firsthand, it seems almost inevitable. Ofc, it’s true that we somehow maintained a Cold War with the USSR for decades, but it’s different today because conditions are declining and the far-right is growing stronger every day.

“I can understand and live with whatever decisions the politicos make”.

You’re just making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. There’s no basis for that extrapolation.

Remember, the poll didn’t ask anything about whether or not we should be involved in the conflict at all. That means everyone who opposed involvement had to choose one of the three options listed - even isolationists. It’s very fair to say that not everyone who supports isolationism is going to be more sympathetic towards Palestine, in fact, it’s reasonable to say that many of them wouldn’t pay much attention to foreign affairs at all (as in, they care that public funds are going to foreign conflicts but not about the details of those conflicts), and thus might give either the neutral response or the response that they’ve passively absorbed through the media. In the same way, there are probably plenty on isolationists who are more sympathetic to Ukraine than to Russia, and yet still don’t think we should be involved.

When asked about military aid to Israel, opinions are split, roughly 50-50:

The half that were opposed had no candidate courting them whatsoever and therefore had more potential to win over, and there are enough of them to be competitive. Instead, the Democrats went chasing after the pro-Israel voters who already had a candidate offering them everything they could dream of. It’s the same story every time the Democrats run right on any issue to try to appeal to “moderate Republicans,” it never works. In fact, there were 34% of Republicans who weren’t happy about military aid to Israel, and if they wanted to appeal to dissatisfied Republicans, those could’ve been a prime target.

Your poll clearly shows that only a minority of people are more sympathetic to Israel, yet both candidates offered complete support to Israel. How does, “I’m about equally sympathetic to both sides,” translate to, “I think we should give billions of dollars of military equipment to one side?” And I wouldn’t be surprised if even some of the “more sympathetic towards Israelis” people still want to be less involved in the conflict, after all, it’s not as if all the “more sympathetic towards Palestinians” people want the government to arm Hamas.

Military force is the primary limiting factor against Israel, not international sympathy. This election has demonstrated the limitations of that sympathy, because at least in the US, the electoral system completely disregards popular support on this issue. How exactly do you envision international sympathy manifesting into significant material change?

I also choose Inscryption but for the ability to sacrifice cards to add their ability to another card, which can also get ridiculously OP.

There’s so many weird combos and stuff to discover in the game, even after completing all the challenges in Kaycee’s Mod I wish there was more to do.

Ashley Belanger May Be Embezzling Money From Ars Technica

Just a few days after writing an article on Ars Technica about the possibility of foreign users on RedNote being walled off from Chinese users, rumors began swirling on Lemmy that she may soon decide to defraud her employer by transferring company money into her personal bank account.

😝

Lmao “rumors swirl” means “we made it the fuck up.”

No, this is not the CCP directly censoring a whole worldview from its citizens, this is the CCP directly allowing its citizens to see that worldview while some random author speculates based on nothing but rumors and hearsay that they might change that policy in the future.

But who needs to read past the title if it aligns with your presumptions?

The slavery enjoyers are not happy with me, it seems. If only downvotes had the power to change historical facts.