If you act like some enlightened centrist for saying there is no difference between an ultraviolet ultranationalist group focused on genocide to the ones who want to stop them, then you are being willingly ignorant, and complicit in the rise of the right. defending fascists’ right to do anything that furthers their goals is to allow death on an unimaginable scale for a second time.
but also can we talk about how you can’t go 20 minutes this season of Bojack without some reference to misogyny and how patriarchy fucks women up?? especially so in episode 11 and with all the insight we gain into Beatrice, how sexist expectations and men trapped her in an unloving and unsatisfactory life. and Honey was straight up lobotomized because she was grieving her son and received no support from her cheating and callous husband. and the way Princess Caroline is treated so callously by her doctors when she has her fifth miscarriage. even the gun episode was made into a gendered issue. the writers pulled no punches this season when being raw and honest about the damage of being a woman under patriarchy
working class people:
we're angry that police murder our neighbors with impunity, we're angry that we exist in an economic system that forces us to live paycheck-to-paycheck, and we're angry that our voices are always ignored or suppressed. as long as this system remains intact, people will continue to feel alienated and stressed and depressed. things like this are worth getting angry about.
some white liberal:
*wearing an indigenous american warbonnet over dreadlocked hair* you receive back only that which you radiate =) no one can oppress you without your consent =) anger is unhealthy and only upsets the natural balance of the universe =) namaste =) all lives matter =)
Not fake news. Just the facts. A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN AMERICAN
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It’s noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”
What part of the US constitution allows Bernie Sander's programs? Why should we have a single payer system when the VA is a single payer system and lets down our veterans?
This is the age-old argument about the limits of the Constitution.Does the Constitution grant power to government or grant rights to people?
In this case, I would argue that it does not matter, In the preamble of the constitution it reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (x)
In most areas, two or three dominant insurers dominate the regional market, limit competition and make it extremely difficult if not impossible for new insurers to enter the marketplace and stimulate price competition.
Medicare Advantage, which enrolls seniors in private health plans, has failed to deliver care more efficiently than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Both the CBO and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), the commission which advises congress on Medicare’s finances, have calculated that Medicare Advantage plans covering the same care as traditional Medicare cost 12 percent more
The right wing:
We want less taxation! We want more privatization!
Say no more, i got you
*More trash on the streets bc no more waste disposal funding, schools and hospitals shut down bc no more funding, massive traffic bc public transport has no more funding, poverty soars bc social welfare and security has no more funding, etc*
The right wing:
What the fuck is the govt doing? Where is all of our tax money going to? This is why the govt is bad, and why stateless capitalism is totally the way to go.
The right wing, again:
You know what'll solve our issues? Privatizing more things and less taxes.
Oftentimes in leftist circles you can hear folks
decrying liberals and liberalism. If you ask them why they hate liberalism,
most of them will point you in the direction of Mao’s Combat Liberalism to
better understand them, but this is a mistake. Combat Liberalism is effectively
an internal memo, warning other communists of the need to avoid liberalism lest
it be detrimental to their work. It details results of that ideology, but not
causes. To that end, I’ve compiled a brief description of what liberalism is
and why it’s bad.
The ideology of liberalism is denoted by three
Free-market capitalism. Liberals believe that
capitalism is good, or at least “the best we have”. While liberals
may argue over how much intervention in the market is necessary, they all agree
on the fundamental goodness of capitalism, and that it should be tweaked rather
The state and representative
“democracy”. Liberals believe that the state is good, and that
representative democracy is an effective means of creating social change and an
acceptable level of participation. They reject any aims outside of the state,
and try to co-opt movements towards state action (e.g. electing Democrats).
Nonviolence: The liberal insistence on
“nonviolent” protest (usually invoking a whitewashed history of Dr.
King) is largely derived from state-worship. They see the state as the only
legitimate user of force, and all others as violent looters and rioters;
because of that, they refuse to even consider violence as a method of protest or direct action (e.g. antifascism).
Indirect action and representative
problem-solving: Linked to the lionization of representative democracy,
liberals care little for direct action, even as indirect as blocking a street
for a few hours. They believe that the power to change things is vested solely
in those representatives, and that the common person shouldn’t bother; direct
action, to them, is illegitimate for the same reason as violence.
A focus on individual rather than class politics.
Liberals see all social issues as issues primarily affecting individuals,
rather than groups. In other words, they lack a class analysis; they see
racism, for example, as the result of individual prejudices and
“meanness” and something to be fixed at that level, rather than a
system of structural violence against non-white peoples aimed at dividing the
Liberalism, as an ideology, is dangerous. These
three tenets combine to form an analysis that is insufficient to encompass the
whole of the enemy, and more importantly a praxis that is ineffective at
combating it. It infects activists and ordinary workers alike, and railroads
them into believing that they cannot change a society that benefits only those
at the top. It railroads them into believing that the burdens they bear cannot
be thrown off, and stands in the way of our collective liberation. It must be
combated, for it is at the root of the struggle.
This is Dλke March Chicago’s statement on what happened and I need to break this down, because my rage over this anti-Semitic dumpster fire of an event cannot be contained:
“Sadly, our celebration of dyke, queer, and trans solidarity was partially overshadowed by our decision to ask three individuals carrying Israeli flags superimposed on rainbow flags to leave the rally.” The flags in question were not “Israeli flags super-imposed on rainbow flags.” They were Rainbow flags with Magen David on them. That is not the same. At all. Either these people are incredibly uneducated about basic symbology, and therefore have no business running an event like this, or they knew these were not Israeli flags per se, but felt uncomfortable with public Jewishness.
“This decision was made after they repeatedly expressed support for Zionism during conversations with Chicago Dyke March Collective members.” Given that the flags were not Israeli flags, this second sentence can only imply that the organisers saw participants who were being openly, visibly Jewish and then immediately took it upon themselves to go up and quiz them about their beliefs on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to make sure that they were “the right kind of Jews,” before determining whether or not they could stay. Because they were not carrying Israeli flags, and were not commenting about the conflict, the only way they could “express repeated support for Zionism during [their] conversations” was if they were confronted about their politics on the grounds of merely being Jewish and asked to pass a loyalty test. Moreover, in the account from Ellie, the Persian Jewish woman whose statement I posted earlier, there was absolutely no discussion where she “proclaimed Zionist leanings.” In fact, she maintained that she was not in the least attempting to make a statement on Israel and was only there as a proud Queer Jew of Colour—yet they ejected her anyway because her Jewishness was “triggering.”
“We have since learned that at least one of these individuals is a regional director for A Wider Bridge, an organization with connections to the Israeli state.”So, again, they were totally unaware of her affiliation at the time of questioning. There was no indication that she worked with this organisation at the time. They are openly admitting this. They didn’t know this particular woman’s politics until they saw her Magen David and grilled her on her beliefs.
“A Wider Bridge has been protested for provocative actions at other LGBTQ events and has been condemned by numerous organizations.” The labelling of this incident as a “provocation” is staggeringly insidious, as Jews have been accused of being evil provocateurs with ulterior motives for literally centuries. The implication is that Jews are evil puppet masters attempting to infiltrate and derail gentile communities, and the accusation has frequently been weaponised to either incite or excuse anti-Jewish violence. This has been true throughout the world over, from Germany to Iraq to Ethiopia, and now Chicago. It is a coded message branding Jews as perfidious and untrustworthy. “You can’t believe anything they say about what happened because they are known liars who will deceive you for their own gain in every way possible. Do not trust any Jew who has not submitted to you and proven themselves beyond any reasonable doubt.”
“The Chicago Dyke March Collective is explicitly not anti-Semitic.” Did you read your own statement, or…?
“The Chicago Dyke March Collective supports the liberation of Palestine and all oppressed peoples everywhere.” *Except the Jews.