From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

• some guy who doesn’t know much about “Real Communism”

Communism doesn’t argue people are all equal in abilities: but instead it argues that people’s needs should be met, regardless.

This doesn’t mean we all should live in the same identical brick huts, either. We just shouldn’t be so barbaric that we let people starve to death in a gutter, even if it’s because of their own failures.

That’s correct in my eyes, too. I’ve done everything I can to stop the genocide, short of getting a plane ticket to go and fight, and I do all I can to donate to groups like Doctors Without Borders to improve the material conditions on the ground to the extent that it’s possible.

It’s honestly disgusting that so many people don’t even recognize it as a genocide. Again: my only point is that we all need to reflect on how to contribute, even in small ways, to improving things on the ground there. I’m not the original person you were arguing with, I just wanted to interject that self reflection is always a good thing, even if you come out thinking the same way as before. Sometimes there’s a slightly different answer though, or a better understanding of the actions of others, which helps future decisions. Nuance isn’t easy, but it’s important to actually making effective change in the world. That’s been my experience, at least. Take it for what you will!

My point was that we should all reflect, and not just assume that we’re correct all the time.

Nowhere in my comment did I suggest we should only focus on the worst major political party in the USA, nor am I defending the idealized image people have of the states. American exceptionalism has always been terrible propaganda, and the only silver living I’ve seen from this trump era is that more people are aware of how shit most US parties are, and the depths of the myths we’ve been fed in this nation.

I’ll disagree that the other options are 100% as morally bankrupt as trump’s group of billionaires and conspiracy theorists, but if you’re talking about Democrats I’d argue they’re only nearly as morally bankrupt, so it’s far from a defense of the party. Maybe 90% as morally bankrupt? 95ish?

You should reflect because it’s the correct thing to do.

What vote would have - even slightly - reduced Palestinian suffering in the short term. What would reduce it in the long term? Have new actions or moves by Israel changed what you thought months ago? Has the incoming administration signalled moves that will change the trajectory, relative to the current admin?

These are all things we need to reflect on

Biden should do something cool, since he’s thinking about preemptive pardons…

One of the most on the nose scenes in the Wire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6r2a2PaQPI

The conversation (copied from IMDB)

Detective James ‘Jimmy’ McNulty : Guy leaves two dozen bodies scattered all over the city, no one gives a fuck.

Detective Lester Freamon : It’s because who he dropped.

Detective William ‘Bunk’ Moreland : True that. You can go a long way in this country killin’ black folk. Young males especially. Misdemeanor homicides.

Detective James ‘Jimmy’ McNulty : If Marlo was killin’ white women…

Detective Lester Freamon : White children.

Detective William ‘Bunk’ Moreland : Tourists.

Detective James ‘Jimmy’ McNulty : One white ex-cheerleader tourist missin’ in Aruba.

Detective William ‘Bunk’ Moreland : Trouble is, this ain’t Aruba, bitch.

Detective Lester Freamon : You think that if 300 white people were killed in this city every year, they wouldn’t send the 82nd Airborne? Negro, please.

Accuracy: the most important part of humor! It’s so crucial to comedy that I have never, not in a million years, seen someone exaggerate for humorous effect. It’s simply not done in civil society: so I thank you for the bravery you’ve shown by shining light on this horrid case of inaccurate humor.

Military industrial complex

I really wonder why you get offended by “We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative”?

What you said here wouldn’t ruffle nearly as many feathers, because IMHO in your other post you buried the lede.

It’s definitely good to say that we need better access to therapy, and to improve societal conditions, since many people would be healthier with those instead of drugs. We’d all benefit!

Then there’s proposals by hardcore wingnuts like RFK that…are unreasonable to the point of doing outright harm. You just got confused for the latter, I guess. I wasn’t sure about your first comment, either.

I’m not following your argument, though I am slightly drunk. The disproportionate representation that’s the focus of the post means that less than 51% of the populace could wield the levers of power in the Senate. That’s minority rule, which is even worse than mob rule.

I get that mob rule is bad, and that we need checks in place to curb the possibility of abuses of power, but I see that as necessitating laws for super majorities and ranked choice or other ways of ensuring less extreme representatives getting into power.

Exactly! I also haven’t bought more than ten items from Walmart in the last fifteen years.

It can cost a little more, and requires patience, but I can think of very few times I’ve actually needed (versus wanted) some item before I could get it not via Amazon or Walmart. Even with the added expense for some individual items I’d wager I’ve spent less overall since it makes impulse purchases easier to avoid.

It’s probably not amounting to much in the way of resisting these mega corps, but it isn’t as difficult as some folks imagine.

I’ve just realized that my tendency to start comments irl and online with “Yeah…” might in part be a defense mechanism to avoid being misunderstood as disagreeing.

Yeah, given that it’s around a hundred bucks (at best) a month for a pickup, and I can rent a pickup from a big box store for 20 bucks…the math works out to do that as often as weekly and still save money, considering registration/tag/maintenance. That’s considering that my wife and I have one car, and one motorcycle: the differential in going from a car to a truck isn’t as egregious as motorcycle or no second car, of course.

Also, it’s always fun to get a huge haul of materials with my motorcycle gear on, seeing folks clearly wonder if I’ve thought through my decisions.

We could also achieve universal peace if everyone just threw down their weapons, and no one would go hungry if everyone would stop being greedy. Unfortunately, people aren’t rational, and there’s cultural/social constructs that keep these things from happening.

If we want to change them for the better, we unfortunately have to operate within the constraints we’re faced with. We can change those constraints with hard work, but can’t just act as if those constraints don’t exist. It’s the same way folks pretend that being “color blind” re: racial issues will solve things. Would be great, but sadly plenty of folks are incapable of not being racist, and historical harms mean that we can’t just pretend that perception is the only problem.

The point folks are making is that Stardew was finished on release, it’s just that the developer has the passion and financial ability to continue to improve it.

If it was 1994, maybe the game would have been released on a cartridge and never changed for myriad reasons (publishing rights, being on physical media, etc).

Example: Super Metroid was one of the best games ever made, and was complete when it was released, but you better believe I’d take free updates that further improve on it. There’s always improvements to make, because nothing can really be perfect. Those hypothetical updates wouldn’t retroactively make it an incomplete game. Maybe it’s too a subtle philosophical point

I truly don’t understand your reasoning here. I’m not trying to be antagonistic, I just simply don’t get it. Even if the parties were functionally equivalent, wouldn’t a better treatment of folks domestically be a better option than changing nothing? It seems like functionally abstaining from voting is saying that some kind of protest vote is more important than the treatment of folks who are being demonized by the far right…or more important than people’s access to abortion and proper medical care…or even shitty attempts at combating climate change.

You claim that voting for the Democrats is inflicting genocide on Palestinians to save one’s own skin.

I’m going to say that not voting, or voting for a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning, is inflicting genocide on Palestinians and folks domestically.

It absolutely pains my bleeding heart that the DNC is so deeply corrupt and shitty, and way too happy to bomb civilians abroad. Absolutely despicable.

The GOP is worse. The GOP is also worse on the domestic front.

Trump has literally said that Israel should “finish the job”. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-criticized-palestinian-insult-debate-with-biden-2024-06-28/

So yeah…it’s morally compromising to vote for the DNC candidates for any number of reasons, but until the way we vote changes in the USA, it’s the least worst option when it comes to voting. It also does not preclude us from trying to change the system outside of voting. It doesn’t stop protesting, or mutual aid or other actions.

TLDR: It’s just the trolley problem, and call me a maniac, but if I can press a button that saves even one life, even if it makes me feel slightly morally complicit in the deaths of others, then shit…I consider it the price of being human in the world we’re shackled to.

Yeah we’re in agreement, and apologies that my reply was a little meandering! It’s hard to reply without sounding contrarian sometimes.

Thanks for a good reply, and I hope you enjoy the weekend!

All of these things can be true at the same time.

Absolutely true: I’m also far-Left, and am a scientist working in the sustainability field.

I know I have complicated views on this (shaming her specifically), mostly because there’s not the same number of posts shaming CEOs and others making even worse choices.

The way I process it would be as if a major new corporation had a crime segment running nightly, but only showed young Black men who were arrested for violent crimes. Sure, it’s not technically incorrect - since they were each arrested - but it’s misleading in a way that should be examined, and people would rightly question why they’re not showing other folks doing the same things.

To be clear - I’m not equating the folks who share or make these memes with racists, but I am using it as an extreme example of ways in which outsized attention to certain celebrities/public figures can come across. I laughed at this and other memes, but I think it’s worth examining why we can name and shame Swift, but not CEOs and others who are more fundamentally responsible for inequities and climate destruction. I’m way-overanalyzing a meme here, since name recognition is doing most of the work (who would click on a meme with the name of some CEO they don’t recognize, versus Swift?), but I do think we could/should do more to drag some of the true ghouls out there into the light and start mocking them, in addition to the folks normally raked over the coals.

Also, I understand that part of that is the hypocrisy, but I’m reminded of what the great Norm MacDonald had to say about hypocrisy:

The comedian Patton Oswalt, he told me “I think the worst part of the Cosby thing was the hypocrisy.” And I disagree. I thought it was the raping. It’s my feeling most rapists are hypocrites. You don’t meet many that go “I like raping and I know it’s not politically correct but, by god” and people go “well, he’s not being a hypocrite and that’s the worst part!”

For my bills? I do have student debt, but have a job that pays well enough I don’t have to stress about it. I do worry about others that aren’t as fortunate.

And if we can’t afford either, why are you arguing it should be free? If you’re saying you want something that you’re also saying is impossible, why not champion two impossible things?

Good luck trying to articulate your thoughts and positions in the future, because you’ve failed to do so thus far, and I’ve exhausted my patience…so I’m gonna bounce

Making it free for everyone is excellent, specifically because it removes the potential of “the consequences for the choice” of taking out loans.

If you’re operating under the assumption that we can only do one or the other, sure: free going forward is better. I just think that we need to make it retroactively free, too.