I can’t imagine being 20 years old and being anything close to enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. I also have to wonder how many of them were caught up in the moment of “Oh, are we clapping now?! She said a thing about…pokemon? Weird, but everyone’s cheering and since I’m a Hilldog stan and going with the flow is pretty much my entire personality I’ll clap and cheer too!”
I think I initially read that on a Vox article, but I looked again today and it looks like I must have read that somewhere else. They’re also saying that’s not the case and that there were false reports going around about that. I guess the rumor mill got me this time. Which is good, because no one deserves to be fired for talking openly about sex.
I prefer this one
She also got fired from her teaching job over it.
Edit: Luckily, this was not true and she did not get fired for talking about oral sex. Which is good.
Sure, and they still managed to pass the alien and sedition acts. Saying they weren’t a monolith is a way of dismissing the mountain of evidence that suggests that, for most of them, participation in the democratic process of an inchoate American republic was intended only for a small segment of the population - literate (i.e. wealthy) white men. I’d suggest A People’s History of the United States if you want a better perspective on that.
a grand tradition of what to do with tyrants.
America as a nation was created by a subset of landed gentry who didn’t like paying taxes. They wanted to make Washington king. The founding fathers were basically the Megamind meme where Tighten (yes, it’s spelled Tighten, not “Titan”) says to the Mayor of the city: “More like under new management.”
The machine of neoliberal imperialism has created global instability and climate crisis, and the rich are locking down their spoils with right wing nationalism.
I want this on my tombstone so the alien archeologists that eventually visit our ruined husk of a world can know what happened.
I’m sorry, I don’t speak “shill.”
I read enough to recognize a bullshit strawman argument. At least don’t be so lazy you’re unwilling to type it out yourself.
So you’re solution is to give Republican’s majority? Sounds to me like you’re on the wrong side, mate.
First of all, it’s “your solution,” not “you’re solution.” Learn to spell. Second of all, I am not telling anyone to “not vote” for Democrats. I’m saying that the argument that if Democrats are given control over both the legislative and executive branches of government that it’ll result in positive legislation getting passed is simply untrue. The only real reason you can give for electing Democrats is to prevent Republicans from getting elected, because Republicans will actively pass legislation. Horrible, comically evil legislation. As such, presenting the choice as between “good” and “bad” political forces is simply wrong. The choice can only be honestly presented as between “neutral, fundamentally ineffectual” and “absolutely heinous” political forces. Optimism in the Democrats is ludicrous and comes across as disingenuous at best and deluded at worst. If you want to court leftist voters, the only real talking point you have is that it’s not a vote for the Democrats, but one against Republicans. Because that’s at least nominally true. Both parties want to preserve the political status quo of the country. Republicans just want to do it while hurting minorities, and Democrats don’t care as much about that. Minor distinction, but that’s the most we can get.
Oh, it’s not that both sides are bad. It’s that there’s two sides, and the powers that be are all on the same one, and we’re all on the other, and we just happen to have “some people *ahem*” too dim to realize it.
on holy disaster
unholy
I’m not gonna waste my time reading a screenshot of someone else’s conversation like it’s an actual argument.
We can call their bluff or we can just take the beating without trying to fix anything.
The end result is the same, though, because, in this particular matter, both sides are similar enough in their collective hatred of the poor that a law like this won’t get passed. It doesn’t matter if you get rid of Manchin and Sinema. It only got 40 D votes. Manchin and Sinema might bump that up to 42. Or the people who replace them might vote the same way they did on this, because there is a core ideological opposition that exists across party lines to actually helping the working class.
There’s always some obstacle that prevents the Democrats from delivering what they promise.
I mean, it’s just so weird, isn’t it? Like how it keeps happening every. single. time. Oh well, maybe if we try getting the Dems a majority, plus the Presidency, one more time we’ll get a different result. That’s a totally sane course of action, right?
They knew it would fail long before it went to vote. Much of what goes before any part of the legislative branch of government for a vote is purely performative.
Do you think Israel in this scenario is the Rebel Alliance or the Empire? Because you seem confused.
You’re right. Israel was always there and then the Palestinians just showed up randomly one day and attacked them out of nowhere. There is no decades long history of apartheid and outright oppression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel and this conflict has no roots in colonialism or ethnostate politics. /s
I’m really not sure I understand what point he’s trying to make.
The point is that there exists a fundamental dissonance between events as they transpire in fiction and for which the audience is emotionally invested and those same kinds of events as they happen in real life and the audience’s perception of them as they happen in real life.
Star Wars was originally inspired by Lucas’s perspective on the Vietnam War. The Storm Troopers are, in that sense, comparable to American forces killing unarmed Vietnamese farmers. Most Americans who saw Star Wars never made that connection because this is in conflict with the audience’s internalized notion of “America good” and “America’s enemies bad.” As such, in watching and enjoying the story of Star Wars, you are ironically investing yourself into a narrative that inverts your normative ideological position. You can extrapolate this onto the current conflict in Ghaza without much effort.
First of all he’s equating fiction to reality which is ridiculous at the very least.
They are not being “equated” - they are being compared. He’s making an implied comparison between fictional events and real world current events in order to highlight similarities between the two. Specifically, he’s doing a form of comparison called “juxtaposition.” Being able to do this is a very basic element of media literacy.
he took revenge on the people who actually killed his family
Well, no, the specific individuals who killed his family were probably the stormtroopers stationed on Tatooine, whom he never actually interacted with. The specific people onboard the Death Star that were not part of the Empire’s military high command had virtually nothing at all to do with his family’s death.
As opposed to taking revenge on people that just happened to be in the approximate vicinity of people who killed his family. The Death Star was a military base.
The individual in the image literally says that he “immediately joined the armed resistance and literally blew up the enemy base.” Not sure what your point is here, unless you’re implying that you believe that the Palestinians who are fighting against Israel are only attacking indiscriminate civilian targets and not military ones.
What does white supremacism have to do with Ted Kaczynski?