PK htiw klaw eriF

Because adages don't describe the reality of global capitalism.

They're Nazi SJW Nazis.

God dammit GD, you have to inject whatever catchphrase she's using now. No Correct the Record money for you.

1. The SJW is the result of identity politics and the lack of focus on material circumstance fused with the forum warrior spreading to other social media, addicted to outrage and "feel good" initiatives that don't do anything. We can see their mirror in the alt-right who are SJWs with flipped nouns and their roots in the "moral majority" who wave anti-abortion signs and other ineffective stunts to placate their moral view. 2. It depends on who is calling it. I use it to describe internet activists whose efforts extend to yelling on social media or feel good petitions. 3. A few came in with PoE, although they stay out of WoT, so yes. Aside from removing a certain backer poem they haven't really affected Obsidian games though. 4. For me as a leftist they have been a major problem. Most left organizations on my campus and area have been colonized to the point wanting to talk about class issues(IE material reality) gets one branded a "class-reductionist" or "workerist". While I can certainly take name calling, it's difficult to convince people who otherwise agree with me to embrace certain things when they associate it with screeching harpies from upper class families who will be liberals in five years. 5. For me spreading anti-idpol ideals is a short-term strategy to establish an alternative view with the goal of eventually starting a coalition of anti-idpol organizations who share this view or reclaiming currently idpol infested organizations like the IWW.

Perhaps, but do they care? No, they are only concerned with their short-term profits and are too consumed by the spectacle to stop the crash if they even see it coming.

Good Sasanach

Well I know what I'm backing now.

Not good enough, you need to put some **** about sexist Bernie Bros are virtually raping every woman in America by not supporting Hillary and how you're with a Progressive Who Gets Things Done and Will Make America Whole Again with her stronk woman who don't need no man powers. You're also too specific with policy claims, you need to stick to vague platitudes that allow her to "evolve" on her stances as much as possible.

I thought you of all people would approve of Hillary's embrace of the blooming shill industry. Free market at work and all that.

Not quite on topic, but I saw this on RT. The headline image reminded me of something so I asked a friend and he came up with this: Make of it what you will.

Varoufakis was right.

Throwing Europe into a massive war was nothing compared to the twitter wars and I have the PTSD from some idiot calling me a ****lord to prove it.

Idpol in action. Exactly, why can't the aloof old guy understand that some people have to be more equal than others? #progressive #virtuesignaling I've seen several of these types of articles and have come to believe that it's because they're scared, not necessarily of Hillary losing the nomination or even the presidency, but rather a rising tendency of younger voters to view issues through a class lense. The thing is they're too late, Bernie has already shifted the overton window and no amount of damage control is going to change that.

http://archive.is/Uh4sr Idpol in action.

Yeah, I was too but I ran out of time. Obviously taking care of kids is hard work, but "worker" usually means "wage worker" in most contexts. I'm saying that voting rights in the US can be correlated with material conditions of voting groups and that it should be no surprise that women got the right to vote around the time they joined the work force en masse. The relative material independence from family allowed them to campaign for suffrage, as well as do other things that were common of single women in the 20's. It's an observation, not an argument.

When "being a part of the workforce" is defined as "being paid for your work", anyways. Which it is today still, but... Well yeah, a slave was something quite different from a wage worker in material terms. Even if the work itself and standard of living didn't change much the relationship to production did and as such we saw a change in rights.

I would think most people would say it was surprising it took that long for women to receive the right. Land of the free, home of the brave and all that. Then I would think most people have a dubious grasp upon the history of the US or the connection between rights and material conditions. White men who didn't own property didn't have voting rights in every state until the 1850's and that was largely due to industrialization pushing more men into urban areas rather than farms. Non-whites, mostly blacks, received the right to vote after the end of slavery and they became paid workers rather than property. Women received the right to vote after they joined the work force in large numbers. What we can see from this pattern is that groups in the US historically only received voting rights when they were part of the workforce, as well as the US being not so great at universal suffrage historically.

OK so it was a comment on the length rather than the circumstances that led to women's suffrage. Isn't that rather KaineParker's point, though - that it's really not that hard to believe based on the current state of affairs? Although his post is actually pretty ambiguous, but that's how I understood it... I'm very ambiguous. But my point was it isn't that surprising that women received suffrage when they did given material conditions(the surge of women in the workforce around the US entry into WW1) of the time period.

Why?

That's because the "new-left" are primarily academic in background and are more comfortable rummaging through the writings of 19th century philosophers for phrases to give their mundane ideas a revolutionary appearance. The effects of this are a completely disorganized and impotent left far more interested in squabbles over ideological purity than revolution or even reform. The aversion to weapons is merely a symptom of this complacency.

"You just don't understand what's good for you" is a pretty universal cop-out when someone is **** at arguing for something. I've heard it from Libertarians/Liberals on property, (Racial/Ethnic) Nationalists on racial issues, Marxists on the necessity of the state(when arguing with Anarchists), Conservatives/Traditionalists on family values, and a bucketload of other uses I'm too lazy to type out. Bruce's use of it is due to him being bad at arguing rather than his Neo-Liberal ideology.

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies. You misunderstood what I was saying. I meant if he was the head of state, and there was a separate, right leaning head of government. But you also may have a point. My bad, it's late and I'm drunk. How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies. This is a good question. You see in order for Chavez to push through his various left wing social reform programs he automatically made himself an enemy of the West. He nationalized several Western owned companies and constantly made personal attacks against Western leaders Its not the personal attacks that was the issue, this was more of an annoyance but when he demonstrated he wasn't prepared to respect the rule of law and order this caused much Western investment to leave the country..Chavez didnt care because he was able to drive the economy purely from the oil and other resource exports A normal government would have diversified its economy and not been so reliant on only one sector to drive the economy..like Canada and its oil production Not really. Canada isn't/wasn't Venezuela and contrasting the two runs into various hurdles like education level of the work force and standard of living. Assuming that Venezuela was governed by someone with economic policy based around the ideas of say Milton Friedman instead of Chavez during his presidency, there's no guarantee that private industry would have performed much differently and diversified the economy. We are living in Global Capitalism after all, and with oil prices being what they were and the availability of imported goods it would have been feasible for Hypothetical Venezuela Companies to develop solely oil production infrastructure and neglect other industry the same way the Venezuelan state has.

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies.

How so?

not that I dont agree with you but dont you think that maybe if there would not be problem with immigrants and muslims in first place we would not see this behaviour from Odin guys? I would be first one to call them racist smucks. They dont 'pop up' from thin air without a reason Of course, but they've arrived and will continue on in some form even in the unlikely event everyone they don't like leaves. The issue is that the liberals/neocons claiming that there is no issue at all with the recent influx of Muslim refugees in Europe or Latin America immigrants in the US is that it prevents a "true encounter" with said refugees and immigrants just as much as the odin types are by saying they're all rapists and thieves who want to destroy the country.