I wouldn’t put it like that, it’s more that they don’t see doing nothing as political, and consider being aware of the problem or even minor donations as a sufficiently positive action.

I still think of that from time to time

I was off the Internet in 2012. What’s Kony 2012?

i think we can probably make the switch to arguing about if parades are gentrification

tfw you have a struggle session about struggle sessions. Never change weirdos.

Next month we’re switching to being exclusively a VR chatroom.

deleted by creator

Which happens every 6 months “ugh I wish I could stop hearing about X” then 2 weeks later its gone

except X which we will have to hear about until we die

Its one thing to advocate for veganism, its another thing to for example call someone a “r*pe enjoyer” to a sexual assault victim for drinking milk in a thread completely unrelated to veganism.

Hexbear, pondering how it is perceived on other instances:

Ngl I kinda miss the chaos vegans

Its one thing to advocate for veganism, its another thing to for example call someone a “r*pe enjoyer” to a sexual assault victim for drinking milk in a thread completely unrelated to veganism.

I may have missed the worst of that; I wouldn’t have said that myself.

I had not seen any recent examples of that, but the "vegan spoke up, how uncivil" thing percolates from time to time without anything near the insult you mentioned.

deleted by creator

None of the problems I’ve seen with vegans has been about the harm of the industry.

I’m not so sure when all of the concern against caring too much gets brought up anyway.

Calling someone that is on your side politically on many of the issues of the day a blood mouth doesn’t win allies

Neither does smug “dae le vegans annoying scolds” statements against vegans that generally aren’t even wrong about their takes at a material level.

😤

ya, it seems much more likely that federated “libs” despise OP/us because OP is/ we are incredibly rude to them, and in OP’s case, have a really uncharitable psychological theory about how they are secretly mad at us, rather than just concluding that such libs simply have different (and wrong) appraisals of facts and values.

I think you make a good point.

Fucking thank you lmao, hexbear was starting to get all smug redditor like in the comments.

Also, is that not how most groups think of their “enemies”? “We’re better and they know it, thats why they do bad thing”

Yes, poor people are coerced into military service because they are systemically pressured into having few other options.

No, that doesn’t mean “shoot and cry” in any way makes the shooting more justified.

Or even an embarassed angry loss, as long as you have the self restraint to shut up about it when you’re too upset to engage critically and not just react. I’ve had plenty of those, some on this very website. Once I caught a ban from a comm, and you know what? I was pissed about it, but I just made a new account and moved on. And looking back I think they were mostly right. The key is to not shut your brain off at the first sign of conflict.

I know it’s not exactly a new observation, but I think that on the internet, bad faith and snark is more or less an assumed default, which incentivzes people to take maximalist positions and never back down even a bit, because posting has become such a zero/sum game.

What do you mean? I mean they (liberals) definitely do have beliefs, just incoherent and inadequate ones.

Totally. I think it’s more accurate to say, the legitimacy of Liberal thought is a lie; however, it’s up to the individual Liberal to acknowledge the fallacies and contradictions. Most will just ignore it.

That’s called being a leftcom, and we ban them for being annoying pedants

In the past 50 years there have been only 2 elections where the Democrats had any effective platform besides “we’re not that fucking guy”.

Yeah I read it in Italian and having then seen the English translation is does seem like the translator was not going for maximum clarity.

I’m reminded of that Bo Burnham song, How The World Works

I havent read that book. But i know brenner is a good economic historian and have recommended some of his other books in here before so thanks for the recommendation. I will get to it once i have some free time.

Eestern military technology only got ahead of the rest of the world in the mid ninteenth century. So it does not seen like a reason. Naderan armies for example are comparable in logistics and volume of artillery fire to napoleonic ones. The military argument is valid only in america and australia. And even then the role of germs in creating a demographic gradient seems to have been more important. We also know of cases like yermak were his oponents had the same military technology but there is a clear demographic gradient.

I disagree that imperialist expansion is a feuture of capitalim. Instead i thik imperial expansion becomes viable once the elites in a given society face crowding. This should appliy to feudalistic, pastoralist or mercantile societies. We could argue that highly urban mercantile societies have proportionally more elites than say more rural ones. But this may not be neccesarily the case when comparing with societies with pastoralist economies.

0The role of imperialism is to prolong or/and delay the cannibalistic phase. The discovery of america allowed europeans time to avoid demographic collapse. Even then by the early 19th century england was per capita the poorest it had been at any other point in history. Thats a sure sing that it was under enormous material contradictions.

I as for pre industrial capitalism. It applies to many societies with an agrarian base at diferent points in time many of these regions likley had larger urban fractions than all but the most urbanised regions of early modern europe. In this part i have to stress the postan thesis, that labor and class relationships (in this case wage labor and proletarization) are a result of productive finctions wich in any pre industrial setting are demoraphically driven(and to some extent affected by artificial selection on plant and animal domesticates). And not the other way around as brenner states.

Same energy as libs saying “If you don’t like Hillary/Warren/Sinema, it’s because you’re a misogynist”

I had mormon missionaries try this tact with me, that at some point ‘deep down’ I knew that their truth claims were correct. I don’t consider this a workable model, as it basically gives up the game, and forces us to work backward. ‘Knowing deep down’ or ‘at an emotional level’ is a common colloquialism but it seems to reifying a sort of compartmentalized cognition where there are multiple cognizers within and individual knowing different things and not communicating, which I don’t buy.

I’m not even convinced cognitive dissonance is an actual thing, as it presupposes humans have a need for logically coherent world views, and given that 99% of humans are not even acquainted with the rules of formal logic nor do they use them in arriving at their individual beliefs, I don’t see any reason we should experience discomfort when those rules are broken by our beliefs. The psychological studies that I’ve read that seem to show cognitive dissonance exists could just as plausibly show that people get uncomfortable when their views are publicly interrogated under some formalized system, which is already pretty obvious.

I mean when we respond with PPB they probably think we’re angry too and are thought terminating. Which usually I am, internet debates are dumb, I just want my trans folks to be living good lives free of discrimination, adequate housing, and with free healthcare that resolves their dysphoria. Everything I believe is bent around that and frankly idgaf how it happens so long as it does

If the liberals somehow do it tomorrow I’d be stoked, but history shows they’re incapable of it, whereas what I described is actively underway in Cuba and even areas less developed on trans rights like China simply because they care a lot about housing and food access

there’s an undercurrent of “actually it’s responsible adulting to do bad things, sweaty”

I mean that’s how it looks on the outside, but it’s and understandable conceit on the inside. You can, with a sufficiently complicated yet wholely coherent and individually reasonable set of premises justify things like sanctions that are going to starve a bunch of children. When you or I come along to cut the Gordian knot and say “starving children is bad and unallowable axiomatically”, they will object, once again self-consistently, that we can’t do that because even worse outcomes will happen if we don’t starve the children.

There’s also plenty of this to go around on the left. Pop quiz: should the Romanovs have been gunned down in cold blood? (The answer is no), but once again, with a sufficiently complex set of premises and inferences you can justify machine gunning a tsarevich.

To me it’s the age old frustration of just not having a shared set of fundamental beliefs or even a meaningfully shared vocabulary. To them, we’re using a bunch of words incorrectly and using them to arrive at inallowable conclusions.

They can absolutely know, on some level, that our politics are more morally correct

What’s the proof of this?

They’re siding with the politics that personally benefit them

Every engaged political actor does this. There’s no material benefit to being a leftist in the west, but it does feel good living by your principles. Liberals simply don’t share the same principles, they aren’t secretly thinking they are morally inferior or whatever.

Do you fuck dudes? What do people assume when you tell other people that you fuck dudes?

Dude is not a gender neutral term and you will find very few trans people that think it is.

Funniest shit ever. This will make no sense to new comrades we make going forwards, forever an esoteric joke of a person lost in time.

Their trans friend who is just trying to make sure they don’t turn every single social relationship they have into an uncomfortable battle and is probably capitulating because it’s easier rather than dealing with their shit.

Thanks for the response. That second map is really helpful to put into perspective how much my country (the US) is screwing me, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around the bottom section.

A few questions if that’s okay:

The capitalist class uses social democracy in the imperial core to appease the workers and postpone revolution.

What is the imperial core?

But it requires exporting suffering to the “developing” (colonized) world.

Does this mean things like mining lithium, or exporting labor to other countries because it’s cheaper?

Sorry if these questions sound dumb. I’m a liberal with dreams of socialism in my head, but Hexbear makes me feel like maybe I don’t understand what those dreams actually mean, so I’m trying to get a better understanding.