So how dire is it when the fed chair says we gotta pay workers more and corporate media says we must accept that wages will never go up?

Do you think it’s a good idea?

Yes

Want to help?

Yes!

Think I’m an idiot?

Yes? But in a good way.

Let me know!

Ok I did that.

But for real, I love the Web 1.0 look of your website. I don’t how I can help, but being an art teacher, maybe I could give some insights.

I had to turn this one off about 2/3 of the way through. I don’t need my anti-imperialist resolve hardened anymore by listening to specific cruelties that have been inflicted on infants. But I subserve hope someone out there listens to Hakim’s video and is equally horrified. It’s important to understand the mechanisms (racism, imperialism, etc) that allow the brutality of man to flourish unabated.

I think normal people like to post fun things and use emojis. Most people are not poisoned by several layers of irony.

Guy’s a great follow. Lotta good takes.

He met with Trump. Trump seemed to really like him. Mamdani kept saying he was going to make NYC great again with his groceries store plan. Trump ate it up and likes to be pictured agreeing with popular people. The right is reacting as weirdly as expected to Trump seemingly agreeing with a leftist juhadist radical Muslim socialist communist anarchist ™. Trump also told Mamdani to continue calling him a fascist. I think he thinks it’s just a mean word used to tease politicians.

I think the post’s contention is whether or not Mamdani was intentionally trolling Trump/the right wing or if he was a playing a socdem political acquiescence or if he’s actually doing actual realpolitik in NYC’s favor. IMO, probably a little of all that.

I read through your other threads and wanted to say something.

There’s been people I’ve known in real life who I’d perceived as being terrible. Most of the time I’ve found this perception to be wrong. Particularly when I was younger, I would often assume popular and charismatic people were actually fake and shallow. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that these people are usually popular for a reason. They’re normally confident in themselves and pleasant to others. They treat others amicably. They have friends and talk to others easily. I personally might view their words and actions as superficial, but others don’t. Doesn’t mean they are bad people. It just means that for whatever reason I don’t get along with them.

There are definitely a few popular people I’ve personally known who are scum. Usually I will not be the only one who thinks this. They might seem confident in themselves and pleasant to others, but there are people they ridicule, behind their backs or to their faces. Their confidence is boastful and belies deep insecurities. They reserve their best selves for only certain people. And they are abusive and manipulative. And to a certain extent they know it.

But these are the extremes. Most people are in the middle. Most people view themselves as generally good natured. I’m kind and well-liked by my peers. But there are people who don’t like me simply because our personalities don’t mesh together. There are people I’m kind to and others I’m standoffish with. That’s just how human beings are.

Wear a mask indoors and tell them there’s still a pandemic. That normally works for me. Hell that works on Lemmygrad and Hexbear too.

Nah that’s just the product of the good ‘ol American educational system

If you’re wrong about something and someone corrects you that’s not a failure, it’s an opportunity to grow and further your understanding.

But I get it. I’m always nervous about not being rigorous in analysis and research. I don’t perceive myself as a particularly strong writer as well. I should engage in discourse more to improve myself, but that doesn’t change my personal hangups about doing it.

Wow, never knew wombats were that far off the main sequence of evolution. What happens when then run out of hydrogen?

Uh but actually you have to divide that 10 billion by the total number of people who have been born under capitalism since 1850 plus the number of potential offspring those 10 billion non-natural deaths would have had which is uhhh like 80 billion. So 10 billion divided by 80 billion is .125 for the true death rate. And if you divide the true death rate by the total amount of people who have ever lived, 117 billion, then you get the total number of deaths under capitalism. So that .125Actually you round down to 0, divided by 117 billion.

Amazingly only 0 people have ever died under capitalism. Even if you multiply that result by 60, you still get 0. Truly capitalism is the most perfect, logical economic system ever created. Go ahead, check my math, tankies.

To put it simply, Marxists use a materialist framework to analyze history. “Historical materialism” was developed by Marx and Engles who analyzed the material conditions of people, groups, institutions, etc. and how those conditions gave rise to historical events. Elite Theory posits that individuals, often rulers or small groups of powerful people, shape history by enacting their will. This analysis is often linear, with delineated actions of elites and responses by other elites. It rarely accounts for the other factors that do not pertain directly to the elites.

An Elite Theory analysis of Osama Bin Laden would likely land on simple terms (jihadist, terrorist) and motivations that are divorced from his own personal history or the material conditions of his life (he hates America for its freedom because he is a Islamic fundamentalist). A Historical Materialist analysis would investigate the economic and societal structures that informed Osama bin Laden’s (ie, his material conditions). What you find with historical materialism is that even elites arise from the interaction between economic and societal forces, and that really anyone with their same material conditions could affect history, albeit with their own motivations and outcomes that nonetheless can be analyzed through a materialist framework.

Elite Theory is simple history, often prescribing powerful men’s actions as the only force behind history. It’s an old, ahistoric theory that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, even if you don’t use historical materialism.

Gotta love AI realism. Who wouldn’t want to have their hands merge with their gloves, have their right pupil to fall out of their head somehow, have really weird flexor muscles, and grow into a giant in the distance.

Wonder how much longer the TrueAnon sub has.

Anyone got a list of other subs that have been banned?

What? Are you accusing me of misinterpreting a meme?! You just made an enemy for life!!

Not sure if I’d label leftists being almost diametrically opposed to a neo-liberal rightwing party like the Democrats as “leftist infighting”.

Pretty sure he was always dumb as hell because he should have said wealth is exponential. Or he meant that wealth growth should be measured on a logarithmic scale, which like, why though? I think he just learned the word and thought it sounded cool.

I had the misfortune of talking to a “wealth expert” about the absurdity of a billion dollars before. I used the million seconds is about a week and a half whereas a billion seconds is 31 years. In essence he said, “You don’t understand. Wealth is logarithmic.” Ah, well touché. Can’t argue with a math word.

This is something I’d expect a guy with a wrestling mask and boxing gloves to draw. Probably in response to an email.