PK htiw klaw eriF

**** me man, how am I supposed to top that when I die? Blow up Wall Street?

Is this your way of saying you only date girls into rough sex?

They're already going down in Houston and minimum wage is $7.25. The competition with chain vendors who can provide similar stuff for lower prices is too much for them.

Honestly both are to be expected to the point I can't even muster a shrug. Impotent threats are so common place now I'm surprised when I play multi-player and am not told to kill myself or that my corpse will be raped by some 12 year old kid. On the other hand the state is the tool the ruling class use to protect their interests so it's no surprise that our government officials are clamping down on speech(as it is becoming clear it could threaten certain corporations who just so happen to fund a great deal of politicians). I don't see the latter going away without a major upheaval and the former will be here until there are no more angry people with an internet connection.

Commie rag on how the Liberal disdain for white workers is code for disdain of the working class

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.