"We demand ranked choice voting! And we will continue to vote for you as long as it’s not implemented, and we want it implemented so that we can stop voting for you!

…why don’t more politicians support ranked choice voting?"

The problem is that we already had, “Things are bad,” and that’s what generated the threat of fascism in the first place. Voting for more “things are bad” will just keep growing fascism until it inevitably wins. The only way to avert fascism in the long term is by pushing for things to actually be good, and that won’t happen as long as people keep supporting the “things are bad” people as the only alternative.

What we need is to acknowledge that “things are bad” is not a viable alternative and not something we are willing to accept or vote for. That means either forcing the Democratic party to change or building an alternative from the ground up, because regardless of how difficult those things may be, they are the only things that could possibly avert fascism. Voting for the lesser evil has a zero percent chance of success, it’s a total dead end. We have to try things that at least have the potential for success rather than sleepwalking into fascism.

The hating Israel ain’t looking too bad either lol

16 hours ago

So uhh any thoughts on those Powerball numbers?

Jesus Christ I’m so tired of this shit. “What if climate change is actually good because you can grow food in colder climates? Then we wouldn’t have to change anything, which I really don’t want to anyway.” “What if masks actually make you more likely to contract COVID? Then I wouldn’t have to wear one, which I really don’t want to anyway.” And now, “What if exposing yourself to radiation is actually good for you?”

This is absolute nonsense. The Wikipedia article is full of “[unreliable source?]” and “highly controversial,” and the video starts out with stuff like, “Actually, all the experts agree with me, they’re just afraid of speaking up,” which instantly destroyed any willingness to suspend my disbelief on this nonsense.

Yes, there is a tiny amount of radiation in a banana that isn’t enough to cause harm. But that has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear reactors. The difference between “harmless” and “extremely lethal” with radiation can change drastically depending on factors like distance, in ways that are not intuitive to most people. Treating radioactive material and radiation produced by a reactor with extreme caution is the best practice regardless, because if things go wrong, they can go very, very wrong. You cannot mishandle a banana in such a way that it destroys a city, which is a something I never thought I would have to explain.

Furthermore, your dismissal of other forms of green energy is outdated, it may have been true 20-30 years ago but the technology has advanced and will keep advancing and with the massive upfront cost of reactors it doesn’t usually make sense to build new ones (although keeping existing ones running is often reasonable imo).

If you’re gonna push this then at least present actual evidence.

Makes more sense when you look at it from the perspective of class.

Kiseido Go Server (KGS)

If KGS’s UI looks like it hasn’t been updated in 20 years, that’s because it’s already perfect. There’s no ads, it’s purely functional, it does exactly what it needs to do and nothing more. If you click on “KGS Plus” you have the option to spend money on lectures given by human pros. Otherwise it’s completely free, and it’s still an active go server that’s been around forever.

As the clip says, it’s on the caps of their uniforms.

I don’t live in Maine or know much about the guy so I have no input on that, I’m just saying I know it. And tbf my perspective is somewhat skewed as I recognize a lot of symbols for the purposes of threat assessment.

Yes, absolutely.

But why skulls though?

For all intents and purposes, I’m opposed to death penalty. I am, in practice, less prone to violence than the vast majority of people. But I’m also honest and transparent about my beliefs.

The working class is so far from power that it’s virtually impossible to achieve victory while pulling punches. Either we roll over and accept things, or we go all out and use whatever means and tactics are most useful to secure power. If you go halfway and present an actual threat to power (even through nonviolence) they will use any means available to neutralize that threat. Failure means death, and it could be generations, centuries even, until there’s another opportunity for change. If you’re not prepared to use every method at your disposal to win, then you simply shouldn’t pick up the fight in the first place.

Of course, nonviolent tactics can be useful and pragmatic, in many cases, they are more effective than violent tactics. However, the choice of tactic should be driven by an honest and pragmatic assessment of the actual circumstances, and not by preconceived ideological notions about morality. And that goes both ways, it is also unacceptable to prioritize violent tactics just because someone finds them more appealing or exciting. And for the record, I’m not saying that violent tactics are the most suitable for the present circumstances. I’m just not willing to write them off for all circumstances.

For example: Suppose a resistance cell in France captures a group of SS soldiers as prisoners, but the Nazis are on their trail and preparing an attack. If the cell doesn’t execute the prisoners, there’s a chance they will be rescued and will end up contributing to the German war effort. On the other hand, perhaps those prisoners could provide valuable intel that outweighs the risk. The decision on whether to execute them should, ideally, be based on these tactical considerations, rather than either an emotional aversion to violence or an emotional desire for revenge (no matter how deserved it may be).

If you don’t have your head in the game and your eye on the prize, and the other side does, then you’re probably going to lose. And fighting and losing is worse than not fighting at all. It’s better to give up and roll over than to go out and get a bunch of people killed over a hopeless cause.

Naturally, all of this is very unrelated to the reality of how the death penalty is used in the present day, which I oppose unequivocally.

Source on what? That the founders owned slaves?

Trump doesn’t give a shit about you or America. It’s just a slogan to dupe people as he persues his own personal interests. He’s corrupt, and the rest of the politicians don’t want to get rid of him because they’re just as corrupt and serving the same corporate interests. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

He might hurt the people you dislike because it doesn’t cost him anything but he’s not going to actually improve your life or anybody else’s.

I definitely think there was more honor back in those days. I mean, thieves have always existed

The thieves and criminals that existed back then were truly vile though. These days, someone might break a window and carry off your TV. In those days, the thieves would take everything you owned and then press you into lifelong servitude, beating you if you ever disobeyed, they would even steal your children away from you and do the same to them.

And nobody did shit about it. Why? Because these thieves were “honorable” because there were “gentlemen’s agreements” and “decorum” and “civility” meant that they were allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted to those who were considered “racially inferior.”

If that’s what honor means, then fuck honor. Fuck this civility fetishism, this nostalgia for a time of greater injustice and oppression. Half the problems we have today is because of these evil and idiotic founders setting up a stupid dysfunctional system, in some ways designed to be dysfunctional because they were afraid of “the masses” voting according to their own interests and freeing the slaves the elites relied on for their lavish lifestyles.

Yes, revolutions do tend to be bloody. That doesn’t mean that I have to choose between endorsing every act of violence or condemning every act of violence.

The reality is, in any conflict, innocent people usually end up getting hurt. It’s unfortunate, but if that conflict means preventing or ending other conflicts, then it’s potentially justifiable in my eyes.

If the government is, for example, drafting people en masse and forcing them to kill and die for no good reason, then overthrowing that government is justifiable, because innocent people were getting hurt anyway.

THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

-Mark Twain

I didn’t say that. I’m not giving some kind of blanket endorsement about “axing anyone involved in ownership.” It’s not an all or nothing deal.

I’m opposed to the bourgeois state using the death penalty against proles.

What’s wild about this is that people predicted AI would be used for nefarious purposes, but generally in the form of like, showing your opponents doing crimes. But here it’s being used to show their own side doing crimes while the other side is only made to look “cringy” or more like a stereotype.

It really speaks to the utter depravity of the US right that, given a machine that can generate any video of anything they could imagine, this is what they do. These people are utterly incompatible with any kind of free or even functional society, and I really don’t know what could ever be done fix them or their culture.

I’m Jewish btw you racist fuck.

Damn, that’s some nice bait you got there. In one line, you, accused people of being racist despite not even knowing what race you are, while simultaneously impling that Jews can’t be Nazis. Not only that, you first baselessly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist, then also accuse them calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi.

It seems like you’re just here to troll, but I’m up to give you the benefit of the doubt nonetheless.

Charlie Kirk was an awful person. Being glad that an awful person is dead does not make someone “a piece of shit” or “a psychopath,” unless you consider the vast majority of humanity to fall into one of those categories. How many people celebrated Osama bin Laden’s death? Was every one of those people, “a piece of shit,” and “a psychopath?”

This moral grandstanding about violence is something I did when I was younger and it came from a place of privilege. I had no enemies, I wished no harm on anyone, anywhere. Because why would I? Any fight I came across, I had the potential to simply walk away. Pacifism is an easy position to hold when your life is secure.

But not everyone has the ability to walk away like that. For some people, it’s an existential struggle with nowhere to run and no chance of mercy through surrender. Those people are, most likely going to feel that they do have enemies, people who they’d be glad to see gone. The way you’re judging people so severely for that, I have to question whether you’ve first made an attempt to actually understand their perspective, or whether you’re only considering your own experience.

There are some people who remain committed to pacifism and nonviolence even when under serious threat. They’re very courageous, and often more than a little crazy, but they earn my respect. For every one of them, there’s a bunch more people who use the term to claim moral superiority over everyone based on living in a (literal or metaphorical) gated community, where violence is neither useful nor tempting. Where, rather than nonviolence being a difficult sacrifice, it’s more like an excuse to ignore the plight of those with backs against the wall and condemning them for struggling for survival in a morally impure way.

You strike me as the latter. Maybe I’m wrong, but if the shoe fits, wear it. And, just fyi, nonviolent shit will get you killed.

“Charlie Kirk said that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns.”

“You brainwashed idiots are making stuff up and falling for outrage bait! What he said, if you look at the full quote, is that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns, AND a certain amount of traffic fatalities is worth it to have cars.”

“How does that additional context in any way change the relevant part that we find horrible?”

“You should just know, and if you can’t figure out why I think it changes it you’re a fucking idiot.”

What a conversation.

I suppose this is the part where you take offense to me summarizing your position instead of using direct quotes, while not explaining how anything you said is actually meaningfully different.

You obviously don’t know the history of voting tests. In the US, tests were designed to be virtually impossible for anyone to pass, but white voters didn’t have to take them, because the rule was you didn’t have to take the test if your grandparents could vote. They were implemented in a racist way.

You want to trust the government to design and implement tests, that sort of thing is what it could easily lead to, whether you want it or not.