• 1 Post
  • 31 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 10th, 2022

help-circle

  • Keep going! I think you still need more precision. Your racialized students are all victims of racism at nearly all times. What you’re talking about is when racialized students are victims of harm (which comes in many forms) where that harm is the intimate form of structural racism.

    So when someone uses a racial slur, racialized people experience harm if they are exposed to it. A) what is that harm if the slur was used at them versus if that slur was used near them but not at them? B) is there harm if no racialized people are exposed to that event?

    Being able to articulate these sorts of nuances in a way that is internally consistent will be the result of struggling with these concepts and coming to deeper understandings and the path forward will be clearer.

    To put a finer point on it, if a white child, in a room of 5 white children and a white teacher, uses a racial slur, how would you describe that, how would you understand the consequences of that, how would you make the decision on whether and how to intervene, and how would you communicate your decision in context?


  • I will challenge for the sake of you refining your argument: bigotry is equivalent with rude behavior and aggressive confrontation. Bigotry is not limited to the structures of racism. You can be a bigot against people without hair, bigot against people based on height, a bigot against people based on body fat, a bigot against people based on body shape and proportions, etc.

    Racism, on the other hand, is a structure that exists even without bigotry. Bigotry is a symptom or an outgrowth of structural racism. The earliest racists didn’t spend their time being rude and getting into fights with people, they spent their timing writing academic essays, giving lectures, and generally being perfectly calm, reasonable high society people who just believed things like race is inherent in the person and values are inherent in the race.

    I challenge you to get more precise about why you think bigotry is different than other forms of conflict, connect it to the structural so that you’re not only dealing with the individual, and proceed from there with a refined analysis and set of proposals.




  • You literally just described a settler state, complete with using reproduction as an occupying tactic.

    Israel, the state, is illegitimate and needs to be dissolved. The Israeli people can integrate and co-createba society with the Palestinians or they can GTFO. Any that stay to explicitly disrupt this and form reactionary movements can get rekt.

    However, as you say, this reality won’t stop the genocide. So a two-state solution is the most likely interim step.




  • You should stop using dictionaries to understand massively complex topics. Dictionaries are useful, but they are not authorities on how complex social systems work. Using dictionaries to support your argument in discussion like this signals you as unserious and unaware of your own unseriousness.

    Mis/Miso is a prefix from Greek meaning hatred. Gyn is Greek for woman. So the word is literally hatred of women. Just like misanthropy is hatred of humans and misandry is hatred of men. However, one of these words also describes a massive social phenomenon that is structural and embedded in social systems including law, employment, art, literature, fashion, policing, war, advertising, incarceration, health care, politics, education, social norms, cultural traditions, etc. Want to guess which one of these 3 words that describes? Hint - the answer isn’t in the dictionary.




  • The solution is not centralization, the solution is a protocol. The team at Flattr tried to do something that worked for content, but it was centralized. The team at Ganxy tried to expand the definition of monetize, but it was centralized. If we had a protocol where teams could publish metadata that enabled users to use any data-driven app to generate some form of compensation for the contributors, then we could build all sorts of workflows into package managers that made it easier.


  • Not really though. The workers don’t control the state, the owners do. The workers can’t actually use the state to advance their interests. Every concession given to them by the owners is a) only given if the alternative is revolution and b) rolled back as soon as possible. Once the workers take over the state, taxes no longer serve that purpose but instead serve the purpose of smoothing out the money supply to avoid hoarding and accumulation.

    Yes, in theory it would be great if we could tax the rich, but history shows us that we cannot, and ultimately theory has shown us the same thing.


  • Taxes are completely fucked. Here’s why.

    ALL of the wealth of a society is produced by workers - they do the mining, the harvesting, the planting, the refining, the quality assurance, the distribution, literally ALL value is produced by the workers.

    The owners got togther and formed a country. Not the workers, not “the people”, only owners formed and organized the country. They chose a private property regime because they now own all the wealth produced by workers. 100% of what workers produce under an employment regime is owned by the owners.

    But the owners can’t sell anything if the workers can’t buy it. And the workers can’t work unless they can support their needs. So the owners take a portion of that value they steal and give it to the workers.

    Then, the government that the owners created take money from the workers in the form of income tax, sales tax, and property tax.

    Then they create NGOs and spend billions of dollars (that they stole from workers, remember) to convince workers to DONATE their salaries to the NGOs to solve social ills created by the owners.

    Then the owners use the government to maintain their own wealth structures and prevent the workers from threatening them. When the owners make mistakes that would cost them fortunes, they take the money from the workers taxes.

    Then they realized that even with this scheme workers were able to buy and own things. So they used their government to change the rules again. Fractional reserve banking let’s a bank hold 100 dollars in cash and create 900 in loans. The bank loans this magical money to workers and the workers collateralize it by giving the bank on lien on their house. The bank now has a more collateral that they can use to generate 9x loan values from, and the act of generating that money causes price inflation in housing, which increases the amount of money the banks can loan out. The net result is that workers pay rent to live in their own homes and that rent goes to the owners who control the government. When this scheme runs into issues, the owners use money taken from the workers (a portion of what was given to them after everything was stolen from them) to smooth out any hiccups and keep the scam rolling.

    So, no, taxes don’t make things better. Only completely dismantling capitalism and running the government for workers by workers and eliminating private property and profit will ever help the 99%. Everything else is a scam and a distraction.



  • freagle@lemmygrad.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    My god you really do believe all this capitalist bullshit. Listen, things have material and labor inputs. Those material and labor inputs could be applied elsewhere, so there are opportunity costs. But the idea that the solution is to create extraneous services that can only be afforded by people who are hoarding our medium of exchange is missing the forest for the trees. If the real problem was that we didn’t have enough paper money to pay for shit, the communists have a great answer for that and it’s called abolishing private property. End of hoarding.

    Now we have all the paper money we need because no one is hoarding it. And yet, and yet, we still have labor and material inputs and those inputs could be used elsewhere.

    So NOW, under communism, we get to make decisions not based on what sociopathic hoarders want but instead based on what society needs. Do we need to figure out the safety challenges for gold plated toilets on Mars, or should we maybe focus on some other aspects of space research. Because if we follow what the sociopathic hoarders want, we’re not getting efficiency, we’re getting maximal waste.