Schmoo

u/Schmoo@slrpnk.net
21 posts · 1.7k comments

Recent posts

Recent comments

The map he posted is identical to the Technate of America map from 1940. Trump has Silicon Valley tech-billionaires whispering in his ear about their wet dream where they form a council of technocrats that own and rule everything within a geographical region that has all the natural resources necessary to be self-sufficient and need minimal trade. This is all coming from egomaniacal tech bros who think they're genius god-kings who know how to make a utopia, and Trump has just latched onto the Technate of America Map because he wants it to be his legacy.

I know some people who keep bees and absolutely none of that is true if you take care of them properly. Bees will try to fill the space they are in with honeycomb even if it is well in excess of what they need because they are anticipating that the colony will grow, but if you harvest regularly and consistently the colony will not grow larger than can be supported by the honeycomb that is left behind.

Do you think that creating an office that uses city resources to provide direct support to labor organizers is just an ordinary social democratic reform? This is a clear collectivization effort, but I guess you don't approve of anything short of a top-down forced collectivization order via state seizure of private property, which IMO just results in violent backlash and a subsequent surge in state repression that sours people to the idea of socialism (not that the mayor of one city in the imperial core even has the power to do something like that in the first place). It is always better for someone with access to state power to support workers' grassroots efforts to organize than to take a top-down approach.

In case you're genuinely curious and not trolling, I'll explain. Parties in the US are not fixed around a particular ideology or set of stances, but have changed frequently throughout history and often take completely opposite positions from their past iterations. Many historians like to divide US political history into eras called party systems to indicate when parties are roughly cohesive and when they go through major changes, and during the civil war era we were in the Third Party System. During the third party system the Democratic party's base was made up primarily of white southerners (though there were northern supporters as well) and after the civil war they fought against Reconstruction in order to uphold white supremacy (the only issue that united Democratic voters in the north and south at the time).

Though there isn't consensus among historians yet, many consider us to be in the Seventh Party System now, so as you can imagine a lot has changed since then. I'll let you do your own reading on that topic.

You (plural)

You're lumping me in with a group I don't identity with because you're so dogmatic about your beliefs that you think anyone who contradicts them must be the enemy. I've said repeatedly that I don't support the war and that I oppose imperialism and yet you keep arguing as if I am in support of it. You speak about Iranians as if they are hapless pawns unable to think for themselves, insisting that the only reason they would protest against their government is if foreign intelligence agencies directed them to, which is actually a very colonial and condescending mindset for you to have. For an anti-imperialist, you sure like to dismiss the agency of people who are themselves victims of imperialism.

You're ridiculous. The people I support are the Iranian people themselves, who did in fact protest over women's rights. Even if the goal of Mossad's support for the protests was to destabilize Iran in preparation for the US invasion, that does not make the protesters "pro-NATO forces," nor does it mean women's rights are nothing but a pretense. While that's certainly the case for Mossad, the protests were undeniably carried out by the Iranian people themselves to advance the cause of women's liberation.

I never said I supported the invasion, you're putting words in my mouth. I said women's liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is. The US invasion of Iran is an act of imperialism intended to subjugate and exploit it, not an insurrection.

I've actually already seen this video, and it doesn't change my stance. Iranian leadership has a choice in how they respond to foreign manipulation and they do not have to respond with repression of their own populace for fear of their adversaries taking advantage of social unrest when they could instead reduce social unrest by making concessions.

I agree with all of that except for the inevitability of repression in a society under siege. Yes, that is a historical trend, but it's also a choice that leadership makes, and it's the wrong one. If the Iranian government made concessions on women's rights, queer rights, etc. while holding firm on national sovereignty it would reduce the level of negative polarization the Iranian people have towards their government giving Mossad less to work with to destabilize Iran.

But the protests for women's liberation were real, and the Iranian regime shut off the internet during those protests in order to suppress them. Even if Mossad was involved in stirring up that unrest it does not justify the state crackdown, nor can it be denied that there is grassroots support for women's liberation in Iran. If you want your country to be less susceptible to manipulation by foreign agents your best bet is to give the people what they want so that they aren't negatively polarized against their government in the first place. Every injustice enforced is an exploitable weakness that your adversaries can seize upon.