• 0 Posts
  • 115 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle

  • The end result is comically bizarre and obviously extremely unlikely. The joke/criticism is how disconnected feminists are from the real world with their overly complicated, academic and abstract language, despite the fact that they ostensibly have a goal of influencing ordinary people into being better.

    The goal of feminism is gender equality. That is to reduce the authority men have over women (and in some cases vice versa). Part of that may be to influence people toward being kinder and more understanding towards others. But another part of that might be a deeper and more complex understanding of how gender functions in society.

    Think about it this way… Just because Einstein’s theory of special relativity is complicated and not well understood by most people doesn’t make the theory of special relativity incorrect. But for some reason in the social sciences you can make the argument that a theory is too complicated and therefore wrong and some people will think that argument makes sense. The theory being complicated is obviously not an argument against the theory of special relativity or Judith Butlers theories on gender.

    I do find this skit funny but I think the joke is one layer deeper. I think the joke is something along the lines of this Upton Sinclair quote:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ―Upton Sinclair

    That is men benefit from the status quo of gender relations therefore men have a certain subjectivity that we expect from them that resists thinking critically about their own position in gendered hierarchy. Seeing (especially working class) men break from that subjectivity breaks expectations and the result is humor.





  • It is weird that your comment was removed.

    it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

    Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

    Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.













  • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.workstoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comAmerica is in danger of Fascism
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    At this point we’re just begging the question. If fascists could get what they want and call it democracy. They would do that. Throughout most of American history with rare exceptions our “democracy” has been captured by capitalists/corporate interests.

    Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. — Benito Mussolini

    If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it’s a fucking duck.

    Look if this is something that makes people who still hold onto American exceptionalism uncomfortable then I would say perhaps America has not “always” been fascist. There have been times of exception. However I want to emphasize those have been the exception rather than the norm.

    Basically the only exceptions have been during times of intense civil unrest. During the civil war, the civil rights movement and, perhaps WWII on an international level.

    It didn’t cost the nation one penny to integrate lunch counters. It didn’t cost the nation one penny to guarantee the right to vote. And the things that we are calling for now would mean that the nation will have to spend billions of dollars in order to solve these problems. —MLK

    The BLM protests were the largest movement of civil unrest in american history. We got Nancy Pelosi kneeling in kente cloth and Genocide Joe as president in response. The question remains if the U.S. can shed what remains of its fascist history. Because to do so would cost those corporate/capitalist interests something.


  • Yeah, but in the case of The U.S. the things the Nazis copied were the fascist things.

    The Nazis were inspired by the American Eugenics movement. Fun fact the Eugenics movement was probably more popular in the U.S. than it was in Germany.

    They were also inspired by segregation for black people. I think most people would agree that at the time racial segregation was an improvement over how The U.S. treated black people at the founding of the country; when there was an even more intense form of racial hierarchy in the form of chattel slavery.

    The U.S. was also founded on the genocide of the Native Americans. That continued past the founding in the form of manifest destiny. More fun facts Hitler justified his invasion of Russia in the terms of manifest destiny.

    That’s a short list of some of the fascist things the Nazis took from the U.S. that stretch back to its founding.

    What did the Nazis take from America that wasn’t fascist?


  • If wielding power in our “democracy” is so complicated that we must exclude non-experts isn’t that an indictment of our democracy? What is it about the legislative and executive process that people are ignorant of?

    While I am skeptical of the celebrity as politician trend which has been prominent over the last few decades; especially on the right. I don’t think lack of experience is the problem with the trend.

    Put aside what you think about Trump’s political project for a moment. He was effective at giving conservatives what they wanted. Tax cuts and Supreme Court seats. Despite having zero legislative and executive experience. You could say the same thing about Reagan and perhaps Schwarzenegger.

    I agree, expecting a strongman to come in and save us from all our political issues is problematic. We shouldn’t recreate feudalism. We need to learn to organize ourselves into a base of democratic power that we can wield towards our broad economic interests.

    But at the same time our media apparatus runs on spectacle, it takes someone with the charisma of John Stewart to be taken seriously by mainstream power brokers. Perhaps he could breakthrough the spectacle and kickstart a new progressive era that could enable those democratic ends.

    Because the alternative to charisma for gaining political legitimacy is going through the political system. And the longer you’re in that system the more time that system has to influence you towards ends that want to stop progress. Just look at Jamal Bowman and John Fetterman.