If you hate jews - itās nice to concentrate them in the limited area just in case. If you love them - itās great that they live in the same land as 5000 years before.
Britain has been supporting the establishment of a ānational home for the Jewish peopleā since 1917 (Balfour Declaration). Why after 107 years so many people want to play on the side of Ottoman imperialism and oppress indigenous jewish people?
If a few millions of alive jews was a real problem for the 460 millions of arabs (and 1.8 billion of muslims), the Final Solution to the Jewish Question would be already reached.
Ok, you donāt need much to hate brown people with strange religion, understandable. But itās really hard to make proper genocide. Even the Germans killed only 6 millions of jews, I donāt believe that Hamas with its corruption will manage to kill even 1 million. So all remaining 9 millions will come to your country and will infinitely ask for help.
The best action would be to accommodate all the Palestinian people that want to come to your country. They will ramp up fertility, number of mosques and Allah possibly will not send you, infidels to hell.
The love for arabs shuld be productive. If the West help Hamas to make Palestine āFrom the river to the seaā, it will destroy the only democracy in the middle east. But if the West accommodates all faithful muslims, theyāll definitely forgive infidelās sins and become liberals
Male abuse/SA victims. Itās already not taken seriously enough when it happens to women, but when it happens to a guy they get put down even more and told to āman upā, sometimes even by people whoād support them if the sexes were swapped.
Being one of those victims, itās honestly worse than that. My (very former) best friend went on to marry and raise kids with the woman that he knew SAād me.
Even more so, itās turned into a hot button topic where people will be actively pissed of at you if you try to bring it up in discussion, calling it a ādog whistleā for nazi / anti-women ideology.
Iām a cishet white male feminist and proud allyā¦ And it took me years to process my own sexual assault as an assault. I was supposed to be happy that it happened and I got to fuck a pretty girl, right? So my confusing feelings about it must have been stupid and out of place, even though I was drunk and having an emotional breakdown when it happened. Even later on, I considered it a ābad decisionā until a woman I was with challenged me to reverse the genders. She said something like āImagine Iām drunk, having an emotional breakdown, abandoned by my friends and end up at the apartment of a man I barely know because they left without me and no one made sure I got home OK. This man starts kissing me, undresses me, lays me in his bed, starts going down on me and then puts his penis in meā¦ with NO protection or discussion. He never asks if Iām OK with it, never asks if I want to, he just does this to me. What just happened to me??ā And I was like āOh yeah! That IS what happened to me!ā
But NOW I frame it as a way toxic masculinity / patriarchy is bad /harmful to men and when I frame it that way I get ZERO hate. Toxic masculinity told me I was supposed to want that to happen to me, supposed to brag about it to my friends, supposed to collect the memory as a notch on my belt. The patriarchy told me it was my right and privilege to have a woman fuck me and take care of me like that. Toxic masculinity also told HER her behaviour was OK, that OBVIOUSLY a man would be into it, that I was getting lucky and I should be happy and excited a hot girl like her would want to do that to me. I forgave her easily, because Iām SURE she didnāt process it as SA eitherā¦ for the same bullshit cultural reasons.
Male SA survivors get hate because they they get pedestalized and used by MRA assholes as reasons to ābhut whut aboutā¦ā at feminism. And THAT is unfortunately real. I donāt think people hate Male SA survivors, I think they hate MRA bullshit and with good reason.
The idea of using public transportation. Itās something for āthemā (the poor), not for āmeā (rich). Changes significantly from country to country, I suppose, but itās a prevalent thought here.
Public transportation is good. Sanitation on public transportation in America is bad.
I got very adept at touching nothing while riding a bumpy subway car in New York, but even that couldnāt always save me from the puddle of piss that ran like a heat seeking stream from the legs of the mentally ill.
Idk at least in the US, riding a train is a nice experience. I liked it. But riding busses is often rather unpleasant. But I only have limited experience to only a portion of the US.
Is that necessary to clear up though? Itās a perfectly fine anecdotal statement that doesnāt require exacts unless youāre just trying to argue theyāre wrong. No one else is having problems responding with the information provided.
TBF considering how slow/unreliable and infrequent it tends to be, itās hard to believe anyone would use it if they didnāt have other options. Even in my city (where buses run 30 minutes instead of every hour as is common elsewhere), it takes an hour and 15 minutes to get somewhere thatās a straight 15 minute freeway drive by car. And itās worse in larger cities where buses are delayed by traffic such that you miss your transfer.
And itās not like improvements like BRT or light rail will change it much considering how often they run in boulevards with 35mph speed limits and stop lights vs the 65mph grade separated freeways. Even a grade separated subway would be slower than driving unless it had spaced out stops, but then walking to said stops would take a lot of time (plus we couldnāt afford one, especially not one that actually serves the sprawl).
Under these conditions, itās understandable to not even bother considering it as an option.
I am by no means poor and I save a lot of money by not having a car, but the fact of the matter is that people give me rides more than I would like. Even in Portland, a city with relatively good transit for its size given that itās in the US, most of the city is still quite inaccessible.
Socialism/Communism/Anarchism. Barely anyone who actually understands them and the theory supporting them hates them, but tons of people have been fed Red Scare propaganda on the matter.
Historical examples, like Revolutionary Catalonia for Anarchism, and the USSR, Cuba, Maoist China, Vietnam, etc. for Marxism-Leninism, absolutely count as Socialist and should be learned from, both the good and bad.
If you dismiss them as ānot real Socialism,ā you fail to learn from what did work in those instances, like literacy rates and life expectancy skyrocketing. If you dismiss the bad, you make the equal mistake of not accounting for the flaws in systems like Soviet Democracy, which resulted in a corrupt Politburo with outsized power.
Study them in detail and find what to take and what to leave behind.
communism is a classless stateless moneyless society. is that how youād describe any of those societies? i wouldnāt. because itās not true. but there are certainly anarchist and communist societies that have existed.
I think we should learn from that. Maybe all forms of power solely resting within the governing function invites corruption.
I havenāt given up yet on it because capitalism is definitely not working right now but there is a form of communism that you can have an informed and rational fear of.
Or like any modern democracy! It failed, obviously.
The problem is that āmassesā are truly a reflection of their government and vice versa, more so in a democracy. You take for a given āthe massā takes good decisions but this, again, works only in the ideal world.
And if you think things are better than the past, think again: internet and social media spread so much crap and allowed people to talk too freely, so now you get Joe the Farmer believing he is some sort of genius cause he knows that there is big plot and the corps are covering it up; you get Dalila the economist believe she knows anything about software development; you get Dario the cheese eater believe he is a medievalist just because he read (and ate) āthe cheese and the wormsā. And all of this people wouldnāt give shit about the āso-calledā experts, cause they studied it on eatashit.altervista.org so they must know better than the college-cuck
The problem with democracy isnāt democracy, but allowing people with entrenched power to control the flow of information in their favor, vs the masses. Democracy is a good system.
That goes for anything, every system ever made by humans. Even the first forms of democracy, including direct democracy, falls under this umbrella. After all in the theory-world, where everything is ideal, humans do behave good so communism (but any form of good government is possible, even anarchy or a good autocracy).
In the real world, though, humans behave like humans so you get corruption and weird power play. So even if you got a nice working system where every human support society, it will inevitably fail under corruption after the first generations of those who put in place such a system die; which is exactly what happens throughout history each time, even in Athens.
Tldr: theoretical perfect system cannot exist in practice since we are flawed creatures
Cuba, a poor blockaded small island nation, has a higher life expectancy than the global hegemon and richest nation ever
The USSR went from a monarchist backwater to a industrial society, defeating the nazis and sending the first satellite into space, in the span of 40 years.
China, under socialism, is now on track to shatter US hegemony through the power of socialist economic management and mutually beneficial cooperation.
Read my other comment, it absolutely has been tried. If your point is that the relatively few historical examples are a sufficient sampling of data to determine that people sharing tools can never work, then Iām afraid you donāt understand numbers, nor historical analysis.
You can learn from what has and has not worked, and analyze structures. Itās possible! You just have to do it.
Leaving it open is a valid political position of making efficiency more important than ideology.
I donāt know which architectures may be invented in the future to work, Iām not against them coming from leftist premises, but Iāve met fewer leftists interested in even imagining them than libertarians or even conservatives.
When most leftists are too busy with hating on groups of people and thinking about what others own, itās really hard to talk to them about anything real.
Efficiency is more important than ideology, correct. Thatās why Iām a leftist.
Donāt worry, leftists arenāt hating on groups of people (except fascists), just inefficient and failing systems. Itās the right that hates on groups of people.
Leftist ideologies include dogmatic statements. Just like all other ideologies. Otherwise we wouldnāt use the word āideologyā at all.
If this were true, youād say that left ideas are the closest to your expectation of whatās best and thatād be fine, and not call yourself leftist. Now itās as if you are putting ideology above practice.
Which would be the same as me always feeling as if I were lying while, say, saying that Iām a libertarian or a distributist, because I have no permanent attachment to any ideology, just these seem sane now. So I rarely say that and feel bad when I do.
Which efficient and not failing systems does your kind of leftists propose?
Ideologies arenāt about dogmatism, but about coherent groups of conclusions based on underlying analysis.
This sentence translates to choosing a model and then trying to hammer the reality to fit under it. Which is obviously dogmatism.
The funniest part is that leftist pseudointellectualism, where there is no actual discussion happening, but a leftist thinks there is because of the tone they use. Also hints at them acting this way in other situations, that is, being used to dogmatism.
Without dogmatism people change models like tools, each one for its own job. They donāt call themselves any kind of -ist.
Itās pretty telling that you out yourself as a Libertarian though, lmao.
Literally the opposite of what Iāve said, lmao. Reading comprehension skills on par with your self-identification.
If only there wasnāt a wealthy, parasitic, world-dominating country which would violently overthrow (or at least try) any country which didnāt kowtow to capitalism, and the Parasite Class.
Itās important to note that when you hear a story about Satanists using freedom of religion to install a statue of baphomet in a public space, or citing religious freedom acts to protect safe access to abortion, youāre hearing about the Satanic Temple. When you hear about Satanists practicing āchaos magickā or talking about how liking blue cheese means youāre gay, youāre hearing about the Church of Satan. Hereās a handy reference from TST: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6395638e-fd1c-4636-963b-c86edd9fdac3.jpeg
I really should get around to setting up a recurrent donation to TST at some point. Especially with the recent stuff theyāve done to oppose fundamentalist religions being given special privileges in state government and education, they deserve more ongoing funding.
Thatās a happy accident not an intentional feature of the font. I think modern fonts that specifically target dyslexia are preferred, Iāve heard good stuff about opendyslexic.org
In a lot of cities and towns living in apartments is seen as something that young adults who are renting short term do, and definitely not families or older couples.
Living in an apartment is considerably cheaper for my situation. I drive so much less, I pay for less power, and I have all this parkland around me.
Iām a car guy and I donāt have a garage, thatās annoying, but I commute by escooter now and drive on the weekends. Itās much better.