TreadOnMe

It was never used by the Democrats anything but cynically. They literally used it first to target progressive politicians, while still praising SNL.

The thing about the Epstein stuff was that it is yet another (as if we needed it but still) revelation that leadership of both sides of the party essentially believe in the same thing, the pure exercise of power for it's own sake.

On the side of the Democrats it placed stark contrast on their lip service to the MeToo movement, where they had looked the other way for years as some of their largest donors and political supporters were open-secret and even sometimes convicted pedophiles and abusers, with people like Jeffrey Epstein having huge ties to Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League, and the high art world.

On the side of the Republicans, their association with these kinds of people had been in the open for years, but their complete capitulation to Trump, who was a very close Epstein associate, indicated that the party was diving directly into a land of pure fantasy, with cynical power grabbing, a complete departure from any reality outside of their own head canon, but then just capitulating to whatever Trump wanted them to believe, who is himself more related to a Democratic power grabber. Republicans are completely sniveling spineless cowards who serve whoever they believe to be their political master.

Epstein was basically what is fucked about both parties all wrapped into one tight ball.

I will object that the reason that I am dismissive of them is that a large number of them are actively hostile towards AES states, communist, and anarchist theory, with many of them spending their time misrepresenting our "tankie" positions and arguments, usually by repeating Western propaganda as if it is decided history that should inform our decisions.

The idea that any of us who consider ourselves anti-imperialist should view them as anything other than an overall hostile online entity is beyond me. I view it as yet another demonstration of overall lack of media literacy.

This person has already lost and they know it. As soon as someone says "We could get into it, but I don't really want to because I don't actually care that much. After all, I am just a third party observer and don't have any biases." and then continues to post defensively has already decisively lost the argument, because they are already lying to you.

You wouldn't have been summarily executed for not keeping your mouth shut unless the things you were saying were things like what the Nazis were saying, or, you know, actually participating in genocide or acts of war?

Your friend is a loudmouth know-nothing, unfortunately.

Not only that, but Americans by and large haven't done farm work for decades, and the ones who did only did it as a child or are already working in those fields. You aren't going to magic up some poors from the cities to harvest oranges.

Correct other than the fact that plastic is not, in fact, cheap.

You are misunderstanding what exactly a newspaper is, and how it and journalists actually function (it's utility) in a market. You are confusing it with the very propaganda that has been pushed by the media.

While it is ostensibly to 'sell subscriptions', this is wrong. If the job was to sell subscriptions they would just copy and improve on the USA Today formula. The utility of their job is to find a way to convince their middle class subscriber base that they hold the opinions that the owners and editors of the newspaper hold, under the premise that all the other subscribers must also hold this opinion, otherwise they wouldn't subscribe. They are selling the illusion of control of a newspaper.

If you are a journalist and you fail to thread that fine line, there are a thousand journalism majors who will do it instead of you. Just because they are failing the sell doesn't mean that the sell can't be made. Especially if your subscriber list is mostly liberals, just issue a lukewarm apology, be better with dog whistles and they will come right back.

The point of the NYT isn't to speak to the interests of middle class liberals, it is to shape the opinions of middle class liberals and bend them towards acceptance of power and the idea of limited capitalist reform, and establish themselves as a separate cultural entity from the conservative media sphere, despite ultimately repeating the most egregious lies it peddles.

Yeah, sometimes it's funny, but mostly it is an ignorant New Yorker interviewing celebrities who, also either being or mostly residing in NY, are also incredibly ignorant of things outside of NY.

Like I saw one person confidently state that Mobile, Alabama is a 'small town', when it is nearly 200,000 people. It has been genuinely over a decade since I lived in a city of over 100,000 people, and I know the difference between those and 'small towns'.

No, if you were going to post like db0, you would say that you don't actually care that much, that your opposition is the one who are mad, post a wall of text saying as much, while also insulting the level of intelligence of the person you are talking to, then end that post with 'disengage' thus abusing the rule.

You can't do anymore damage to the rule than db0 has already done himself.

There are plenty of women who aspire to be a housewife, without actually understanding the eventual legal ramifications that could occur if this whole 'trad-wife' thing actually goes the way of the 1950's.

Very few of these women actually understand that there are women still alive in the U.S. who could not legally have a bank account when they were in their 20's. And those that do don't actually believe that these Christian men would do that to them.

Mostly, they just don't want to have to compete in the capitalist rat-race directly, just through their husbands. That being said, this is a world view that is being sold to them through aggressive and deliberate marketing practices, it is subjugation repackaged as empowerment.

I doubt Russia would be able to help them all that much in a conflict with the West even at full strength. At most they would be a safer place to get resources, which again, the more isolated they are from the world the more likely that is to happen, and at least they would be able to maintain their airspace which would protect China's northern border.

I just don't envision a scenario where Russia's lack of involvement is the make or break for China, and I would bet that China sees that as well. I don't think it is short-sighted, it is another case of risk v.s. rewards v.s. consequences engineering thinking, where the rewards do not outweigh the risks involved or potential consequences of failure.

And this is besides the fact that I don't think Russia, particularly the Russian military, is very interested in direct military coordination with the Chinese or Chinese soldiers on Russian soil.

Ideally China would turn some of its over-production towards making Russian equipment, or modifying Chinese equipment for Russian use, but I also don't think the Chinese or Russians are that interested in that kind of cooperative technology agreement, as they are direct market competitors in that regard.

It's not a self-own unless you assume global communism is literally a few conflicts away.