If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.

Evidence or GTFO.

  • 3 Posts
  • 846 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 30th, 2024

help-circle

  • Everyone believes their cause is just. Every conflict ever can be framed as defensive. The US has compared every major conflict since WWII to stopping Hitler, even cases like Vietnam. My mother once quoted, “All that’s necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing” in the context of supporting the invasion of Iraq.

    If You investigate and deconstruct the concept of “defensive” wars (as You are so wont to deconstruct concepts) then You will find that they are entirely dependent on socially constructed ideas about “legitimacy.” If Switzerland does not have “legitimate ownership” of Zurich, then to station troops there or to fight against Zurich being occupied by foreign powers would make Switzerland the aggressor. It could be argued that, when the US invaded Vietnam, it was merely “coming to the aid” of the Republic of Vietnam, which had requested our aid (nevermind that they were our puppet). Likewise, in Ukraine everything about how you view the conflict is dependent on who you think is legitimate - the “consensus” interpretation in the West is that the central government is legitimate and the separatists are just Russian puppets, while the pro-Russia view says that the separatists are legitimate and the central government just Western puppets.

    So V.I. Lenin observes:

    …the bourgeoisie [of all the imperialist nations] are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are “only” fighting “against defeat”.

    Funny enough, this observation was shared by Leo Tolstoy, the Christian Anarchist/Anarcho-Pacifist, who writes:

    For ever since the beginning of the world, the use of violence of every kind, from the Inquisition to the Schlüsselburg fortress, has rested and still rests on the opposite principle of the necessity of resisting evil by force.

    World War I is a prime example of how things can go wrong. There had been a major socialist movement at the time across every major country in Europe, and there had been a significant fear that, should the imperialist powers start a major war like that, it would lead to a coordinated revolution across all of Europe. But instead, when war broke out, the social democrats all found reasons to rally around the flags of their respective countries. They were committed to keeping their positions within the realm of acceptability, and the war narrowed that realm of acceptibility to the point that coordination with ordinary people of other countries (or genuine opposition to the war) was considered treasonous. So, all the social democrats of Europe rallied around their flags and drafted proles to go out and kill each other for no good reason.

    If Your “anarcho-antirealist” stuff is supposed to have any merit at all, then it ought to allow You to recognize that the concept of “defense” is largely arbitrary - or are You seriously of the belief that national borders have some inherent natural truth when even the law of gravity does not?


  • The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On.

    Click for summary/spoilers

    Kenzō Okuzaki was conscripted to fight in WWII and the experience radicalized him against the Japanese government. He deliberately attempted to get himself shot by Allied forces but was captured instead. After the war, as the years passed, he became worried that the younger generation was growing up unaware of the horrors of war and the atrocities that their government had committed, and so would be prone to repeating the mistakes of the past. He became desperate to do something about it.

    Okuzaki brazenly defied norms about politeness and drove around in a car covered in slogans, shouting out of loudspeaker that the emperor was a war criminal. The film focuses on his attempts to track down elderly veterans and get them to record testimonies in front of a camera, specifically investigating allegations that Japanese soldiers resorted to cannibalism in New Guinea. Of course, people generally aren’t particularly thrilled about a stranger showing up to relitigate old war crimes and interrogate grandpa about The Things We Don’t Talk About. There are times when Okuzaki even gets involved in fistfights with people over it.

    After collecting testimony from a bunch of people, he comes to the conclusion that a colonel was responsible for the war crimes, and he decided to kill him over it. However, when he arrived at his house, he only found his son, who he shot and injured instead.

    Okuzaki is a complicated and problematic figure but in some ways that makes the film all the more unsettling and challenging. Shooting someone for just for being related to a war criminal is pretty indefensible, but Okuzaki was broken by the war he wanted to avoid repeating (the decade in solitary confinement probably didn’t help either). He wanted to remind people of the horrors of war, but it’s because of what the war did to him that he had become maladjusted and prone to violence (although it’s worth noting that a lot of his protests had been nonviolent, and had gotten him jail time). I think there’s a natural inclination to look at things like this in the abstract, to ask, “how for is it justifiable to go in pursuit of a good cause?” but the film pushes us to consider the psychological, human aspect of this traumatized killer trying desperately to create a world where people like himself would not be created.









  • I had a part time job at a UPS warehouse in Tennessee when covid hit. We got a new manager, and so they gathered everyone in the warehouse together into a small break area, everyone was right next to each other and nobody was wearing a mask, and the manager gave us all a speech about how much he cared about our safety. There were TV screens in the break areas that had been set to display information about covid safety guidelines that were being blatantly violated.

    The same day, my supervisor informed me of a new policy: they’d had too many people “faking” being sick and calling out, so from now on you have to come into work even if you’re sick, and they’ll decide if you’re sick enough to go home. I with I had gotten it in writing because what she told me was definitely illegal, I actually called OSHA afterwards but it was my word against theirs. This was the only time I’ve quit a job with no notice, I remember it clear as day, I told her, “People are dying” and she replied, “I have a business to run,” and I said, “I don’t care.”

    I wanted to set the damn building on fire. I was fortunate to have saved enough to take time off work because I lost all confidence that there was anywhere around me that would be a safe place to work.


  • “Democrats in the House and Senate [are] focusing on lowering your costs, dealing with affordability. Republicans, led by Donald Trump, are focused on spending treasure and, God forbid, lives on military adventurism overseas,” Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer told reporters this week, just before the chamber voted to advance a resolution halting further attacks on Venezuela without congressional permission.

    Lmao Chuck Schumer is trying to play this card? Hey, how did you feel about throwing away countless lives and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about all the money we’re spending to help Israel commit genocide? Maybe if some of that had been spent on making things more affordable, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

    If Chuck Schumer actually believed that for a second, we’d be hearing about his resignation and suicide. It’s just a soulless ghoul saying whatever voters want to hear, just so long as it doesn’t involve bashing ICE.




  • "What’s exciting is that the research is clear that these cash transfers are helpful, and the big concerns that they might disincentivize employment or contribute to inflation were not substantiated in our evidence review.”

    PN3’s recent evidence review looked extensively at various programs that put money directly in the hands of families, from studies of unconditional cash transfer (UCT) programs in Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas, to existing dividend-based unconditional cash transfers, to child allowance pilot programs throughout the U.S. Two of the largest and most data-rich programs the researchers studied were the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Payments, neither of which was intended to be an anti-poverty program but each of which have measurably reduced poverty among their constituents.

    In 2021, in what amounted to the first and so far, only nationwide case study of the impact of cash transfers, the Biden administration temporarily expanded the federal child tax credit (CTC) through the American Rescue Plan Act. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the expansion lifted 2.1 million children out of poverty. For Black and Latino children, official poverty measures shrank more compared to the decline in rates for white children. The temporary cash infusion also had notable benefits on mental health, again with a greater difference observed with Black families. An additional $100 per child per month reduced depression symptoms in all low-income parents, with Black parents seeing nearly twice the reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms as other subgroups.

    One study found that the monthly cash difference of $313 per month led to some changes in infant brain activity, with infants whose mothers received $333 monthly showing higher “fast-brain” activity compared to babies of mothers receiving $20 monthly. The brain’s mid- and high-frequency bands are associated with cognitive skills, which indicates that cash transfers may improve development of these skills, though more research is needed to draw a direct link.

    According to an analysis at Washington University in St. Louis, child poverty in the U.S. costs up to $1.03 trillion a year in loss of economic productivity, increased health and crime costs, homelessness and maltreatment. Cash transfer policies seem like a bargain in comparison by helping mitigate social challenges and reduce government spending in health and human services.





  • The war powers act gives the president the authority to invade any country on earth, he only needs congressional approval for operations lasting longer than 30 days. Congress also gave the president blanket authorization to invade any country he thinks might be harboring terrorists, following 9/11, with this absurd, fascist decision to grant the executive dictatatorial powers passing the Senate 98-0 and the House 420-1 (and with nearly 90% of Americans supporting Bush at this time). Trump’s actions in Venezuela therefore, while a brazen violation of international law, are fully within US law. It’s virtually impossible for a president to actually violate US law through military actions abroad.

    Any attempts to rein in these ridiculous laws should be fully supported and are badly needed. Even if Trump ignores them, it can then be used to discredit him and prove that he is acting against the will of the people.