• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • And remember how they made a big deal about Bernie’s age in 2020? They asked for medical records, and even after getting letters from two or three doctors, that wasn’t enough. It was like the birthers all over again: when they got what they asked for, they moved the goal posts and wanted the long-form documents.

    Meanwhile, not a peep about Biden, who is Bernie’s junior by fourteen fucking months, as if that made all the difference.

    And then, four years later, it wasn’t an issue anymore. Just run the guy again.

    On top of that, the DNC would condescend to anyone left of center about electability.


  • Lianodel@ttrpg.networktoMemes@lemmy.mlA strong hunch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah, pretty much. It ties into the “white genocide” and “great replacement” conspiracy theories, where the mere existence of nonwhites is taken as violence. It also often blames Jews for orchestrating it. It doesn’t make any sense, but it appeals to paranoia and supremacy, and provides a scapegoat for literally any actual systemic problem.


  • Lianodel@ttrpg.networktoMemes@lemmy.mlA strong hunch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    At least in the contexts I’m talking about, and I’ve never seen it used in another, it’s really not that. It’s coming from talking heads fearmongering about nonwhites, portraying nonwhite immigrants as criminals, ginning up a “border crisis” narrative, and even calling it an “invasion.”


  • Lianodel@ttrpg.networktoMemes@lemmy.mlA strong hunch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    When conservatives fearmonger about immigrants and brown people, one of the current favorite talking points is to say they’re “military-aged.” It’s vague and meaningless, but it implies something sinister, and plays into just about any conspiracy theory an audience member might be inclined to believe.

    On top of that, they’re afraid from merely seeing these people. They’re just scared to death of brown and black kids and young adults.




  • Lianodel@ttrpg.networktomemes@lemmy.worlddeagle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    I recently got into hiking, which provides some nice changes in scenery!

    Granted, that’s hard to do as a regular thing multiple times a week. But still, a walk around your neighborhood, or especially local parks if you’ve got any sizable ones, might be fun in a way going on the treadmill isn’t.





  • It’s especially sticky because “Men’s Rights” is a bait-and-switch, ripping off “Men’s Liberation.”

    Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements, because patriarchy hurts everyone. That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.

    So Men’s Rights does the thing where it appeals to people with genuine grievances, but offers them a bullshit solution that benefits grifters and people in power. It’s not this systemic problem, it’s this group of people, and if only we could deal with them, everything would magically fix itself. In this case, “It’s not patriarchy, it’s not capitalism, it’s feminists, and women in general. If only we could get them back in their place, your life would be back on track. So vote for me/sign up for my course…”

    So, bringing up the ways in which men also suffer under sexism can kick up some dirt to muddy the waters, intentionally or not. Some will be bad faith actors who just want to shit on feminism. Others will be taking the feminist side on this. And those in the middle, who see things turn toxic, can go any way—but if they stay neutral, or especially move right, then the reactionaries gain some ground.

    So I don’t know what’s in OP’s heart. But, at least from way too many fights online, I’ve found that the best course of action is to assume good faith, and give reactionaries enough rope to hang themselves. They don’t have the better ideas, and they don’t have the better plans, but they’re good at shit-flinging. If you just make a good case, they tend to unmask pretty quickly and fall apart. There’s no point trying to convince a die-hard bigot, but you can play to the audience by just making the better case and helping bigots embarrass themselves.

    In my opinion, at least, for whatever that’s worth. Sorry for the rambling!


  • Sure, but I think this example also commingles labor with ownership (as is often the case).

    Like you said, your plan involves building a four-family home. That’s labor and worth fair remuneration. It’s just that, in order to get that remuneration you’d be taking payment from tenants who build no equity for their money. Yeah, you’ll have to renovate in 30 years, but you’d still have property and the money paid in rent while they don’t.

    A landlord can also simultaneously do valuable work supervising and managing a property. That’s not mutually exclusive with profiting from ownership, and we can separate how we evaluate the two. It even comes up with billionaires: Bill Gates obviously did work worth payment as CEO of Microsoft, it’s just not where he got most of his fortune. It can simultaneously be true that he’s a talented guy who deserved to be paid, but most of his fortune came from exploitative business practices and profiting off of the labor of others.

    Also, to be clear, there’s a difference between structural and individual criticism. Obviously slumlords are pieces of shit, but there’s a difference between that and someone who really does work as a property manager doing right by their tenants, or a family renting out a part of their home to make ends meet. I can think that landlords should be judged on an individual basis, while landlording as a thing shouldn’t exist.