First, this user tells me that tankies are bad. Tankies think that the system is bad, and that its collapse is an unqualified good.
Then, they switched to accelerationists. Accelerationists want the system to collapse hard and fast, so that people don’t acclimate to poorer conditions, and get motivated to fix the system.
Meanwhile, I’m warning that the system is going to collapse, and we need to fix it ASAP.
Hence, my question. What the heck is they on about, now?
What are you on about, now?
That’s great, but my comment has nothing whatsoever to do with tankies.
This cartoon symbolizes one election cycle. We can argue about how many people should be depicted on the siding, but since there are 16 people on the main line, the Utilitarian argument works even if there are up to 15. And that’s what’s been happening: Labor got tied to the tracks in the '70s with the election of Jimmy Carter. Poor people joined them with the election of Bill Clinton. Palestine as a whole got tied to the tracks next to them in 2024. And now, they’re flirting with adding trans people to the line-up. And, no, that does not obviate the fact that the Republicans are indeed worse.
But that’s beside my point. This cartoon doesn’t depict the erosion of democracy and the crumbling of civil institutions. That can only go on for so long before the whole system fails.
And I keep saying that if stemming the bleeding is the best we can hope for, then that’s how democracy fails. Vote for the slightly-better candidate, by all means, that’s the best move in the here-and-now. But, unless we change the rules, it’s gonna be the same best move next time, too, and the patient only has so much blood.
Morello makes a very Utilitarian argument. The trouble is that it works equally well when your choice is between Hitler, who wants to murder 5,000,000 people, and Hitler Lite, who wants to murder 4,999,995 people. It makes all the difference for those 5 people, and voting for Hitler Lite is the best move.
Not this crap again.
Dustin Hoffman was 30 years old in The Graduate (1967). Sean Connery looked like he could’ve been 30 in his high school yearbook photo. There have always been baby-faced actors, and actors who look older than their age. We could just as easily compare Dick van Dyke at age 30 in 1955 with Bill Skarsgård at age 30 in 2021, and reach similar conclusions about the effects of, say, highly-processed food and microplastics.
I find the whole history fascinating. European aristocracy adopted heeled shoes from the Mongols, and drastically increased the height of them. The whole point was that they were poorly adapted to everyday life, and signaled that the wearer had enough wealth and status to be idle and wear impractical things. Women adopted the fashion, and the heels on their shoes got slimmer, and the shoes got curvier. Then men stopped wearing heels, which were by then seen as delicate, fragile, and effete. Y’know, feminine traits.
The women-as-beauty-objects theme came back when early, 19th century photographers had the models wear heeled shoes in the erotica / pornography they started producing. Those shoes weren’t practical at all for standing or walking, but the models, uh, didn’t need to stand up. It wasn’t until the advent of cheap steel in the 20th century that the stiletto heel became structurally sound enough to walk on.
I just find it so bizarre that the high-heeled shoe is practically a torture device, and a historical symbol of female disempowerment and status as merely a sex object, and so many women adore them! It’s also strange how they made the transition from porn to office wear.
Oh, four fucks ache!
I don’t know what you read, but it wasn’t my comment.
That is such an utterly deranged take.
“I believe America is great when it protects everyone’s rights. I don’t believe that the government should be in the room meddling when parents make the best choices for their children, and doctors do what’s right for their patients.”
That’s what i want to hear. I want to see Democrats stand for something, and refuse to accept Republicans’ framing of issues.
Huh. As an atheist, I’ve always heard the argument that the universe is far too complex to have just happened on its own, and that God was the maker. Which makes no sense to me, because God is complex enough to make the universe, and God just happened.
Actually, upon reflection, this explanation makes more sense to me, that God is a part of the universe and created humans. I may not share what belief, but it’s interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Then who or what determined what is possible?
I get that part, since more is possible than I can do, but God is the one who decides and creates what is possible, so he should be able to do anything whatsoever.
I can do everything that’s possible for me. Am I omnipotent?
Seriously? I’ll call him President when he acts like one.
I prefer, “inconveniently correct.” I’ve learned from long experience on the Internet that if one is wrong, somebody will jump in and tell one all the ways. But if one is correct in an uncomfortable way, well, it short-circuits people’s brains, and they just start talking nonsense and throwing insults.