CuriousCat Archive Page 90 of 202

  3. Different anon. I would say it is a land dispute and much, much more. I was wondering about your views on a two state solution. From my readings of various left-wing opinions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there seems to be a divide in support for a two state solution and the belief that all Zionist migration to the Levant since 1882 is settler colonialism. The people who believe this usually don’t say point blank that the Israelis should leave the region, but to me, they seem to imply that. Do you know if there is a mainstream left-wing consensus on the future of the region?

    in response to Maybe I'm crazy, but it sounds like the OP is trying to make an oblique reference to current events. Namely the rekindling of armed conflict on the site of one of if not *the* most politically complex land disputes in human history. Not the mention the homeland a people who have survived *many* attempts to genocide them out of existence. Arguably one of the most disenfranchised groups to ever *exist*, in spite of their current military might and dominance of the region. If all that doesn't complicate the whole #landback thing, I don't know what would.

    I don't think there's a left-wing consensus on *anything*, but two-state solution has been the most supported opinion by progressives in Israel and Palestine for as long as I've known about the conflict. But now Israel has spent over a decade displacing and murdering Palestinians, and I don't know how possible a two-state Israel is anymore.

  4. Sorry if you get this question all the time, but what advice would you give to a rookie video essayist?

    financial success may never come, and, if it does, it may take a while, so you should probably make stuff you will enjoy making even if not many people see it

  5. Maybe I'm crazy, but it sounds like the OP is trying to make an oblique reference to current events. Namely the rekindling of armed conflict on the site of one of if not *the* most politically complex land disputes in human history. Not the mention the homeland a people who have survived *many* attempts to genocide them out of existence. Arguably one of the most disenfranchised groups to ever *exist*, in spite of their current military might and dominance of the region. If all that doesn't complicate the whole #landback thing, I don't know what would.

    in response to the op said ‘worldwide’, ie not just america. in other places ownership is less clear

    is it accurate to call this a "land dispute?" to my understanding, Palestine spent quite a while advocating for a two-state solution in Israel. even Hamas seems divided on whether the Israelis should be displaced or if Gaza should simply be independent from it, and Hamas doesn't speak for all of Gaza.

  6. Favorite boss-battle in a game?

    I don't know that the battle itself is very interesting, but beating Mr. X in Streets of Rage 2 is always IMMENSELY satisfying.

  8. so, ian, if that IS your real name, what'd you do with dan's skin

    in response to Ian Danskin? More like Ian Dank-Sin, am I rite?

    the stretch of my life where I didn't hear that joke began when I graduated middle school and ended when I became a youtuber

  9. *summoning circle begins forming around a dead horse named Discourse*
    So what are your thoughts on Hamilton?

    my thoughts on hamilton are like the long island iced tea

    mixed

  10. Should drugs beyond mj be legalized? I feel like a case could be made for it because making it legal would force organizations in drug trade to actually adhere to health standards, but idk if that would happen or just enable a fun new flavor of capitalism wasting your body away

    this is where advocates call for drugs to be *decriminalized* rather than *legalized*, and, yes, I support full decrim

  11. the op said ‘worldwide’, ie not just america. in other places ownership is less clear

    in response to Giving the land back to the people who originally lived on it is a really thorny thing to apply worldwide, I think- how far back are we willing to go on the "originally" part It also seems to assume a certain mythical, static north american past with nation states and clearly defined borders and complete lack of wars of conquest among native americans

    I dunno, I feel like "give it to the people you took it from" still makes sense, provided you didn't also genocide them out of existence

  12. Ian Danskin? More like Ian Dank-Sin, am I rite?

    you are, in fact, not rite

    you are rong

  13. Giving the land back to the people who originally lived on it is a really thorny thing to apply worldwide, I think- how far back are we willing to go on the "originally" part

    It also seems to assume a certain mythical, static north american past with nation states and clearly defined borders and complete lack of wars of conquest among native americans

    in response to Houston, like all cities, is bound to change; it's pretty normal for somebody's childhood to be paved over into a parking lot or transformed into a mall or office building. If giving the land back bothers you more than the normal churn of capitalism in an urban setting, you should ask yourself why that is.

    yeah, no, this isn't a slippery slope or a thorny proposition. there were specific tribes who were displaced when the US took land from them. it's not really relevant who lived there before them; they can sort that out themselves if necessary. it's disrespectful to respond to "you stole something" with "well, what is ownership, anyway?"

  14. But why’s that the way it’s gotta be? Why does my nation have to be destroyed for their nation to exist? Why does the nation that my parents emigrated to, the nation that has raised me and given me endless memories, the “culture” I grew up knowing and learning and loving; why doesn’t IT have a right to exist?

    in response to I’ve always had this weird grappling with the whole #landback thing, which is just one question: If the land that I lived on my entire life, the cities I was born in, and yes, the (pop) culture I grew up on are, in essence, an actively harmful delusion, then what does that mean for the memories I have there? In short, if the Houston, Texas doesn’t deserve to exist, then what happens to the memories I had there, to the town I grew up in? I realize this is a spectacularly selfish question, and that I frankly am completely in the wrong for trying to place any important on my selfish desire to keep what’s mine, but it still just always bothers me, this thought of “but what about MY home, MY land, MY memories?” I hate myself for thinking of it, but I can’t stop thinking about it.

    Well, as I said elsewhere, it doesn't HAVE to be destroyed and it was a weird assumption on our part to entertain that it would. But I feel you're obfuscating the issue: it's not a question of whether your culture has a right to exist, it's a question of whether it has a right to exist *on someone else's land*. And you're conflating the two; "if my culture doesn't exist HERE, then you're saying it can't exist AT ALL." No one's saying it can't exist, but it exists on stolen land, and the people who took that land certainly never said "your culture can exist alongside ours" to the people they stole it from. So, if you want your culture to be a just one, it has to adapt. It has to find a way to exist AROUND the return of land to the people it belongs to.

    Your love of Houston and the rights of the people who lived there first have to find a way to coexist. And YOU'RE the one who needs to adapt most in that compromise.

  15. Another thing to consider is that giving the land back to the people who originally lived on it could mean disenfranchising marginalized people currently living on that land, many of whom have made it their home for decades and established their own cultures there. In the U.S. this would apply to blacks whose ancestors were *brought here against their will as slaves* and Latinos who crossed the border to find work and provide for their families. Can you honestly say that bulldozing *their* homes and invalidating their culture would be the world improving?

    in response to Houston, like all cities, is bound to change; it's pretty normal for somebody's childhood to be paved over into a parking lot or transformed into a mall or office building. If giving the land back bothers you more than the normal churn of capitalism in an urban setting, you should ask yourself why that is.

    My mistake here was accepting the premise that Native Americans' first order of business would be to expel everyone else and bulldoze their homes. There's really no reason to think that, in no small part because it's obviously a logistic impossiblity. I entertained it because we were talking about how it would feel, and taking the worst-case scenario as a possibility and saying "okay, what if?" is usually a good way to address the underlying fears. But it was silly to accept that premise.

    If landback actually happened, there would be YEARS of logisticating to figure out what's going to happen when land ownership transfers over. The fact is, the US government currently has all the leverage, and, if they were to actually agree to returning the land to its original inhabitants, there are going to be terms for what happens to people living there currently.

    Also the assumption that people who own US soil will just displace everyone currently living there is assuming that every culture would act the way we would. That's a big assumption.

  16. How do we get the government to reflect the will of the people and enact popular progressive reforms when it seems like the main way of reforming the government is the government itself, which presently doesn't reflect the will of the people?

    (not rhetorical, sincere question)

    Trust me, if I knew the answer to that, I would've told you already.

  18. Houston, like all cities, is bound to change; it's pretty normal for somebody's childhood to be paved over into a parking lot or transformed into a mall or office building. If giving the land back bothers you more than the normal churn of capitalism in an urban setting, you should ask yourself why that is.

    in response to I’ve always had this weird grappling with the whole #landback thing, which is just one question: If the land that I lived on my entire life, the cities I was born in, and yes, the (pop) culture I grew up on are, in essence, an actively harmful delusion, then what does that mean for the memories I have there? In short, if the Houston, Texas doesn’t deserve to exist, then what happens to the memories I had there, to the town I grew up in? I realize this is a spectacularly selfish question, and that I frankly am completely in the wrong for trying to place any important on my selfish desire to keep what’s mine, but it still just always bothers me, this thought of “but what about MY home, MY land, MY memories?” I hate myself for thinking of it, but I can’t stop thinking about it.

    I don't think that's a fair comparison, though. Because the churn of capitalism is tragic; my home being bulldozed to make way for a minimall is pretty explicitly things getting worse. But giving the land back to the people who originally lived on it means acknowledging your home never should have been there in the first place. In that case, bulldozing the home is the world IMPROVING. That's gonna feel weird for the person who lived in that house.

  19. In one of his Q&A vids, Thought Slime said he was a vegan "with one exception" because he has cats who need to eat meat, & while he is obviously in the right to describe that however he wants, it made me curious--would you say the vegan community generally considers it an exception to veganism if you need meat for a cat or other carnivorous pet? Would you consider it one?

    Veganism doesn't have hard boundaries, and there's a lot of stuff that falls into the category of "depends on what vegan means to you." Not all vegans boycott honey. Some vegans won't wear leather. Some *will* wear leather but only secondhand. Some won't wear wool or silk. Some won't eat food that contains casein. Some don't eat refined sugar. Some still eat gelatin.

    There are definitely many who won't keep pets if it means buying meat for them. I don't personally consider someone who feeds meat to a cat to be non-vegan, but I also wouldn't have a cat for that reason. I don't think it would make me less vegan, but I just... would prefer not to deal with meat that often.

  20. Recently, you tweeted out "mcr if mcr could write melodies *cough*"

    Care to defend yourself?

    MCR's melodies weren't good. I don't think it requires further clarification.

  21. About how much do you judge me, a person who 100% could have gone vegan and fully believes that I probably SHOULD go vegan for many many reasons, including ethical concerns and the environment, but still hasn't gone vegan because, more than anything else, it's inconvenient?

    Be honest, you won't hurt my feelings.

    y'all spend too much time assuming vegans are judging you

  22. I’ve always had this weird grappling with the whole #landback thing, which is just one question:
    If the land that I lived on my entire life, the cities I was born in, and yes, the (pop) culture I grew up on are, in essence, an actively harmful delusion, then what does that mean for the memories I have there? In short, if the Houston, Texas doesn’t deserve to exist, then what happens to the memories I had there, to the town I grew up in?

    I realize this is a spectacularly selfish question, and that I frankly am completely in the wrong for trying to place any important on my selfish desire to keep what’s mine, but it still just always bothers me, this thought of “but what about MY home, MY land, MY memories?”

    I hate myself for thinking of it, but I can’t stop thinking about it.

    I don't know if this will help, but try thinking about it this way:

    If the Houston land were to be given back, Houston becomes an ex. You spent a long time together, and that time was rich and meaningful. You had your ups and downs, sure, but it was hugely impactful on your life. You couldn't stop caring about it without hating a part of yourself. And, in many ways, your life is diminished without it. But, also: its time had come, and it needed to end. And, honestly, maybe you never should've been together in the first place. The seeds of your breakup were there in the very beginning. But it still mattered. It was still yours. Honor it, care about it, love the memories, and, once it's over, take your time moving on.

    Don't blame the heart for wanting what it wants.

  23. I've heard conflicting information about nonviolent protests - are they liberal propaganda intended to stop meaningful change or are they effective ways of advocating for causes while retaining public support?

    Like a lot of things, nonviolent protests are not *intrinsically* anything. They CAN be an effective way of advocating for causes while retaining public support, but their efficacy can fluctuate widely depending on a lot of circumstances. And they CAN be used as liberal propaganda wherein they are a morally-defensible pageant of resistance that is insisted upon even (or especially) when it accomplishes little. For me, the most valuable interrogation is into WHICH nonviolent protests have been effective, WHAT circumstances allowed them to succeed, DO those circumstances exist today, and HOW would we stage a nonviolent protest in modern times for maximum impact? And what are your goals, and is the most effective nonviolent protest you can manage enough to achieve them?

  24. Most obscure game you've loved

    Glum Buster

  25. Does intention matter at all when people do things that cause harm? An Everyday Feminism article says no, and they use the example of getting hit in the face with a frisbee, saying you wouldn’t care if the frisbee was thrown at you by accident or on purpose. I (as a relatively privileged individual) don’t really agree with that; if someone hit me in the face with a frisbee, I would be a lot more angry if they threw it at me on purpose. Maybe it’s just a bad metaphor! But if someone says or does something racist/sexist etc. due to, it seems to me like they would be a LOT more amenable to changing their behavior than someone who did so out of malice, and that these two situations require different responses?

    Well, it's a bad metaphor if you're talking about emotions. Yes, if someone throws a frisbee at you on purpose, that's much more offensive! But it's a useful metaphor if you're talking in terms of impact; if the frisbee breaks your nose, it's no less broken if it hit you by accident, and the person who threw it is no less responsible.

    The real problem with the metaphor is it's based in a very human, one-on-one scenario. This kind of "intent vs. impact" stuff is most relevant in more broad, systemic situations. Like: juries tend to convict Black defendants at higher rates than whites ones, and give them longer sentences. Maybe that happens because white nationalists are on the jury; more likely it happens because of well-meaning white jurists who don't realize they hold some racial biases, ones they would despise if someone said them out loud. The question is: if you're the Black defendant getting 7 years for shoplifting, how much does the difference matter?

    This is, ultimately, a deontology vs. consequentialism question, and I don't think it's one we're meant to *resolve* so much as think deeply about. My general rule of thumb is: deontology for interpersonal problems, consequentialism for societal ones. If my girlfriend eats my leftovers out of the fridge, the difference between thinking it was hers and knowing it's mine but eating it anyway is significant. But if a politician funnels money away from homeless shelters and into some private businesses that donated to his campaign, it's classism whether or not he personally hates the poor.

    See what I mean?

  26. How is your leg doing? Can you edit in longer spurts again?
    (If your health was a patron-only info, I absolutely don't mind if you ignore this question)

    No, I can still only sit at my desk for 30 minutes at a time, but I can do multiple sessions a day now. We're getting there!

  27. What item of clothing if worn with nothing else makes somebody seem even more naked than it they didn't have anything at all

  28. Socialism predates communism, and marx
    Communism was pitched as "socialism but as a science" when first discussed

    To answer the question asker: No, because literally every decade has it's popular socialist movements, Ricardo died a while before the communist manifesto was published, Marx died before the Lenin led the russian revolution who then died before ever seeing the Cuban revolution, You can do this for any "chain of socialsim" going all the way back to the Chartists if you want, ideological or practical, armed or intellectual, successful or not, and it will still dig up new socialist movements you have never heard of, you aren't seeing a "socialist high-tide" but a "capitalist low-tide" as government and ideological opposition to socialism grows less tenable (usually helped along by a massive financial crash or several) and the weird numerology is just related to the fact that keeping back socialist movements is not passive, it requires active suppressive work, and a century is about how long it takes for the people in power to forget that and assume it's dead forever 'this time'

    in response to Is there any kind of weird numerology around the fact that socialism starts getting popular in the first half of a century. We all know about the 20th century, but the 19th had its fans with David Ricardo. Those two examples clearly mean something.

    (FTR, I wasn't saying Marx started socialism, I was saying that, you know, the writing of the most influential piece of leftist writing in history didn't lead to it *declining* in popularity.)

  29. Nearly every US President can be described as 'a charismatic figure with a cult of personality and too much power.' Hell, until her death Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be described that way.

    in response to OP here. I just wanted to say that all it takes to make a dictator is a charismatic figure with a cult of personality and too much power. Which is a description that can apply to more revolutionary leaders than I can name.

    can we also just point out that the French Revolution is considered the bloodiest revolution in history, with a death count of one million? and the US' decision to value the market over human life during the coronavirus pandemic has a death count over 50% of the French Revolution in one year.

  30. "it also takes a person who wants to murder"

    Isn't that motive?

    in response to OP here. I just wanted to say that all it takes to make a dictator is a charismatic figure with a cult of personality and too much power. Which is a description that can apply to more revolutionary leaders than I can name.

    no. "motive" just means you would benefit from the person dying. everyone on earth has motives to kill SOMEONE, and, if that someone turned up dead, that might make them a suspect. it doesn't mean they did it.

  31. Is there any kind of weird numerology around the fact that socialism starts getting popular in the first half of a century. We all know about the 20th century, but the 19th had its fans with David Ricardo. Those two examples clearly mean something.

    I think it'd be hard to say communism was more popular in the first half of the 19th century given that the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848

  32. What if Joe Biden was two smaller Joe Bidens

    are you implying he reproduces by mitosis?

  33. OP here. I just wanted to say that all it takes to make a dictator is a charismatic figure with a cult of personality and too much power. Which is a description that can apply to more revolutionary leaders than I can name.

    in response to I think dictators tend to historically consistently lead to dictatorships; we should probably avoid those.

    that's a little like saying "all it takes to be a murderer is means, motive, and opportunity," which... no, it also takes a person who wants to murder.

  34. I'd go as far as to say a socialist president beholden to a non-socialist legislative branch (wether liberal-centrist or conservative) would accomplish absolutely nothing of value no matter if he had 8 years or 100.

    in response to As the original questioner (sorry about any bad phrasing for my question), what I was asking was whether you’d rather have a guaranteed non-Republican president for a long amount of time or a socialist president for a shorter amount of time?

    "absolutely nothing of value" is unnecessarily reductive, I think, but generally, yeah, I feel like whatever they accomplished would be a moderately nicer kind of exploitation, not any kind of lasting change.

  35. Would advertising happen in a socialist economy?

    I tend to think of it more like there'd PSAs?

  36. Is Asshole Cow Jerry Political?

    he IDENTIFIES as apolitical but we know what that usually means

  37. Favorite David Lynch project?

    >:(

  38. Regail us with the story of your biggest bruise

    I had a massive hickey on my neck one time. A customer at work started crying when she saw it - she thought I'd been beaten up.

  39. Just finished reading About Writing by Samuel R Delany. I have Reflection of Light on Water ready to buy but wanted to also read one of his sci-fi books. Any recommendations of where to start?

    Nova is a good place to start if you want something that's fun and also a little heady. It's the best of his early, accessible works I've read.

    If you want something denser, less accessible, but really interesting, you might pick up Trouble on Triton.

    And if you want something REALLY formidable, REALLY compelling, and at times REALLY frustrating, dive into Dhalgren. There's really nothing quite like it.

    Be warned: my suggestions are ranked in increasing order of plotlessness. Past the 60's, Delany took far more interest in character, theme, setting, and ideas than with, like, three-act structure. And I've found his books a (rewarding) struggle at times because of it.

  40. When can we expect the next chapter of ARP? We need answers Ian, we need our playbook on how to fight authoritarians! Lol

    I'm still recovering from an injury and can only sit at my desk for short bursts of time, but I've come a long way. The next video will be a final CO-VID, then probably an ARPB Endnote which is a digital talk I did for UC Merced about GamerGate. So the next TARP will be after that - I have a draft of the script ready to go. But I don't know how long before I can sit at my desk drawing hundreds of slides again. :-/

  42. As the original questioner (sorry about any bad phrasing for my question), what I was asking was whether you’d rather have a guaranteed non-Republican president for a long amount of time or a socialist president for a shorter amount of time?

    in response to I think the standard the initial questioner had in mind was the Biden administration, what you're describing wouldn't be possible even with a "socialist" president

    I think 8 years of a socialist president would probably accomplish more than 40 of liberal centrists, but neither is really a solution. electing a socialist doesn't make America a socialist nation.

  43. I think the standard the initial questioner had in mind was the Biden administration, what you're describing wouldn't be possible even with a "socialist" president

    in response to How long would a period of relative stability and competent management of the capitalist system have to be for you to consider it preferable to one chance at transformative change? (This assumes, of course, that a socialist president is equivalent to transformative change, which one would not be, but I think that's the gist of the question)

    is THAT where they were going with this?

    I think it's a bit early to call Biden's America "stable and competent," we haven't even returned to pre-Trump levels of awfulness

  44. How long would a period of relative stability and competent management of the capitalist system have to be for you to consider it preferable to one chance at transformative change? (This assumes, of course, that a socialist president is equivalent to transformative change, which one would not be, but I think that's the gist of the question)

    in response to Would you rather have 5 carbon copies of Biden as your next 5 presidents or one actual socialist as your next president? How much, if at all, would on have to change the first number to change your answer?

    What is our criteria for "relative stability?" Relative to what? Are we going by *my* definition of stable and competent?

    Here are some criteria I would consider economically just:

    - I would want the workforce to be at least 90% unionized
    - I would want less than 5% of the country to live in poverty
    - I would want low wealth inequality; I'll be generous and say a Gini index below 0.3 (I think I'd consider anything above 0.2 to be still unjust, but I'm trying to be reasonable here)
    - I would want recessions to be *very* uncommon; like, it's reasonable to expect a country to go two decades without a recession

    I'm not an economist, this is just what I managed to think up today, and obviously a country could have all these traits and still find ways to be horrifically unjust. I'm just thinking of things we can measure.

    All these things are technically possible under capitalism. Iceland is the only country in the world with over 90% unionization; the next most-unionized nation is Sweden with only 67%. Nine nations have poverty rates below 5%: Azerbaijan, Brazil, Malaysia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Taiwan, and Turkmenistan. Several countries have a Gini score below 0.3, though the lowest is about 0.24. Australia, India, and Poland are the only countries that have made it ~20 years without a recession, and it's something of a brag for all of them; they aren't expected to repeat this feat in the future.

    So, like... in a world with over 150 nations practicing capitalism for centuries, I'm pretty sure NONE OF THEM has EVER had all four of these traits at once. So I could give a number of years that I'd need to see this happening before I'd feel safe assuming it's not going to erode back into late capitalism, but it seems kind of moot?

    And, as you know, I'm a leftist. I see no reason we shouldn't have 100% unionization, 0% poverty, no meaningful wealth inequality, or why we should ever have recessions. All of these are already compromises for me. And capitalism has never delivered the compromises.

    So... yeah. :-/

  45. Did you know that there is a very short book by Mark Fisher that makes this point (in the context of being so immersed in capitalism that you can't help but define your values in relation to it)?

    in response to Do you know your own values?

    yes, yes, I'll get to it

  46. Also, does revolution "historically consistently lead to dictatorship?" Are there any historical examples to back up this claim? Do they out number the historical examples of revolutions that didn't lead to dictatorship?

    in response to Sorry, I'm not following. Shouldn't *any* action that has historically, consistently led to dictatorship (which revolution *is*) be avoided? Regardless of wether it's more or less likely than other means to do so?

    Yeah, like... revolution leads to democracy far more often than it leads to dictatorship.

  47. do you ever learn about an industry you've never gave the slightest inclination of thought towards and it's capitalist woes and how the government basically just let's it happen? What was that most recently for you? For me it's learning about the wild shit that goes on in the world of Seed production

    Yes, and I had a similar experience. Seriously, FUCK Monsanto.

    The thing I'm constantly rediscovering is the various ways capitalism dicks over people with disabilities. That's not really an industry, but it's so pervasive that it kinda feels like "support for disabled people" is quite a racket.

  48. Would you rather have 5 carbon copies of Biden as your next 5 presidents or one actual socialist as your next president? How much, if at all, would on have to change the first number to change your answer?

    I'm confused.

  49. Do you know your own values?

    I guess that depends on how we think people acquire values. Like, I often think of values as things you choose, in which case, yeah! I know them. I picked them! But, also, the nature of ideology is we absorb the values of the culture around us, often unwittingly. In which case, there are many values I hold unconsciously. I've come around to thinking that you tend to know the values you chose and discover the values you absorb. In which case... yes and no! I know the ones I've spent the most time thinking about.

  50. Sorry, I'm not following. Shouldn't *any* action that has historically, consistently led to dictatorship (which revolution *is*) be avoided? Regardless of wether it's more or less likely than other means to do so?

    in response to I wasn't implying that *all* dictatorships are the result of revolution, only that revolution often results in dictatorship. It's a risk; at least as much of one as a social democracy backsliding into late-stage capitalism. And I'd prefer living with the latter risk than the former. Is that not something we can agree on?

    leaving late capitalism to run its course also consistently leads to dictatorship, that's the conundrum

  51. Why did so many fights for equal rights that started in the '60s like Stonewall, the Civil Rights movement, 2nd wave feminism, and Native American rights seem to "die down"?

    I don't have a comprehensive answer to this, but, off the top of my head, a mix of the following:

    a) Because of those movements, the ideas they rallied behind gradually became more mainstream, and, consequently, the movements seemed less radical. The Civil Rights movement's biggest rallying point was a handful of bills that were , eventually, passed; the anti-war protests died down when the US pulled out of Vietnam. So, to some extent, these fights appeared to "die down" because the world caught up with them, and because they achieved some goals. That said, I suspect a lot of popular support for the movements overfocused on immediate goals rather than the long-term work of actual equality, and so a handful of tangible victories probably left a lot of people dusting their hands and saying "my work here is done." Movements stayed in the hands of people dedicated to the work, but large chunks of the more casually-involved were placated. Things transitioned to the slower, more laborious effort of policymaking and grassroots organizing. Also, I feel there's the inexorable issue of popular attention: a movement may be strong as ever, but news cycles move on once ratings start to dip. Many movements only appeared to "die down" because the rest of us stopped talking about them.

    b) The movements you're referring to occurred during a period of cultural progressivism and economic stability, during which liberals basically owned Congress and the Republicans couldn't rally much support. It is hard to overstate the degree to which the Reagan 80's were a clapback in the culture wars. This was already building throughout the 70's, but the reforming of the Republican Party, the Southern Strategy, market deregulation, and the MASSIVE popularity of Ronald Reagan were the country pushing back against thirty years of progressive liberalism. Reagan's response to Gay Rights was to refuse to address the AIDS epidemic. Regan's response to feminism was the gut dozens of women's protections that had accumulated over the decades. Reagan's response to Civil Rights was to veto the Civil Rights Restoration Act (which, thankfully, Congress overrode, but it was a hell of a statement). And his complete overhaul of our economic system meant we would never again have the kind of economic stability that makes long-term protest sustainable. Reagan is, in the end, a symptom of where America was headed more than a cause, but who he was and the ideas he represented were a sea change we've never managed to roll back.

  53. Will it be feasible to have recall elections? A mechanism where citizens elect to revoke an elected politician's mandate & fire the politician.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election

  54. Best way you've seen somebody type out a laugh online

    my partner once wrote out "splargh"

  55. What would be a snappy recontextualization of the phrase "free market?" Preferably something not sweary.

    pee market

  58. So just to clarify:
    -Are Slavs not white? Can you be racist against them?
    -Are latino people with incredibly white skin and Spainiard heritage white?
    -Are SPAINIARDS white?

    - Eastern Europe is not a monoculture; there are Black and Brown Slavs. Assuming you were referring to the dominant culture of white Slavs, yes, they are white. You can be xenophobic against them for being Slavic, but xenophobia is not, on its own, racism.

    - Latin-American race is a very complex subject, and I don't really have an answer to this. There's been enough historical intermixing of races in Latin America - between European colonizers, African slaves, and Indigenous cultures - that race is often more of a gradient, where (in some countries, at least) skin lightness comes with privilege but there aren't clear boundaries between white and non-white. A child may have more privilege than their parents if their skin is a few tones lighter. But, here in the States, a good rule of thumb for determining whether a culture is white or not is "does the Klan want them dead?" In which case, no, Latin-Americans are not white. They may get treated as white if they are light-skinned enough, but their whiteness can be revoked as soon as their heritage is realized. There are debates about the ins and outs of passing privilege, but, no matter where you come down, their whiteness is not secure the way mine is.

    - Spain is not a monoculture; there are Black and Brown Spaniards. Assuming you were referring to the dominant culture of white Spaniards, yes, they are white. You can be xenophobic against them for being Spanish, but xenophobia is not, on its own, racism. (But, seriously, there were centuries during which a significant chunk of the Iberian Peninsula was a Muslim caliphate; the reflexive "Spaniards are white" erases A LOT of people.)

  61. Do you mind if I quote some of the things you've said on this website elsewhere in the internet, such as in politics forums?

    sure

  62. If you could hijack anyone's body and say just one sentence, who would it be and what would you say?

    I'd make a cow say "gabagool"

  64. Policing is maybe the best case study for a job where if they don't do it, they get more power and responsibility, police budgets are blamed for not clearing crimes, then increased, with little to no movement in the actual crime or conviction rate
    They don't WANT lower crime rates in the same way private prisons don't want to rehabilitate anyone, the key thing is that a punitive model rewards police for not making the changes in the question, it's a castle built on air, a theoretical idea designed only to waste everyone's time and efforts away from "maybe the strikebreaker slave-catchers shouldn't have guns even if they promise they represent justice now" which is the basis of prison and police abolition

    in response to If the justice system were reformed to the point that victims were believed over abusers more often; if the process of conviction was expedited and care was taken to protect victims during said process, would that make the punitive model more appealing in your opinion?

  65. I originally read it somewhere in a feminist subreddit, but here's the director saying he was afraid that could happen (third question) https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/21/14035620/arrival-denis-villeneuve-interview and here is a right-wing critic claming it as such https://nypost.com/2016/11/19/amy-adams-in-arrival-is-a-pro-life-heroine-for-the-ages/ .

    in response to I've heard people say the ending of "Arrival" was pro life. What do you think about that reading?

    if the only people saying it's pro-life are conservatives, then I think it's a poor reading of the story. they tried to claim The Dark Knight was pro-Bush. hell, they tried to claim Black Panther was Alt-Right! not good with textual comprehension.

  66. Sex?

    yeah, I'm free at about 4:00, come on over

  67. Should porn & the porn industry be normalized?

    porn, yes. the porn industry should be overhauled and THEN normalized.

  68. Would you hit a woman?

    who did you have in mind?

  69. My understanding is that Amy Adams, who is pro-life herself, views that movie that way; it seems that the movie's story about a woman choosing to have a kid who she knows for certain will die young of a horrible illness can be read as affirming a pro-life stance, but it only functions as a pro-life argument if you start from the premise, "abortion can only be okay if you have a really good reason to get an abortion" because the text of the film implicitly states that knowing about your future kid's horrible death isn't a clear-cut reason to prevent the kid from being born

    in response to I've heard people say the ending of "Arrival" was pro life. What do you think about that reading?

    I can't find any statement anywhere that Amy Adams is pro-life.

  70. Thoughts on Pauline Kael? Do you find her overtly cynical towards classical films?

    She was the first critic whose writing I ever fell in love with. I don't think I've read many of her takes on classical films, but I've never felt protective of the classics so I don't think they'd bother me.

  71. Sorry if it´s been answered before but: from what I've seen of your online activity, you tend to dissociate yourself with queerness (not with queer allyship of course - with identifying with being queer) for being cis+het despite being poly. Do I have it right? If I do, why is that the case?

    Some people consider polyamory to fall under the umbrella of queerness, and I'm not going to argue with them. I have never really considered that to be the case, but I don't think it's, like, a ~wrong~ opinion. I don't feel polyamory is, for me, an innate quality - it is a relationship preference I have. I was monogamous for a chunk of my life, and I don't feel like the switch to being otherwise was a moment of self-realization. It was just "I think I'd prefer this." I also don't feel polyamory has ever meaningfully stigmatized me. This is partially because I've never worked in a field where my relationship structure was a liability. Honestly, I've gotten more stigma for being vegan, and THAT certainly isn't a type of queerness.

    This is not to say that an identity MUST be stigmatized, or MUST be something deep and innate, to fall under the banner of queerness. But the relationship most of the queer people I know have to queerness I just don't feel towards my polyamory. So I've never put much thought into whether the label should apply to me, nor felt much desire to adopt it.

  72. I've heard people say the ending of "Arrival" was pro life. What do you think about that reading?

    I would have to hear the full argument to judge.

  73. If the justice system were reformed to the point that victims were believed over abusers more often; if the process of conviction was expedited and care was taken to protect victims during said process, would that make the punitive model more appealing in your opinion?

    in response to If you razed all prisons to the ground, what would you do with people like Harvey Weinstein?

    It would maybe go from 5% appealing to 6%. My moral critique would be unmoved.

    I think you might be misjudging the degree to which victims being disbelieved and the process being long and painful is endemic to the model itself. It is not in the best interest of any part of the justice system to actually serve justice expediently. It is better for cops for crimes to go unreported, and better for lawyers and judges for most arrests to end in plea bargains or dismissals.

  74. Fox charges cable companies high rates to be included in their packages, and are able to do that because shows like Tucker Carlson's have high ratings. Everybody who pays for cable gives money to Fox. He could lose all of his advertisers and still create value for Fox.

    in response to It's not even making them that much money, he barely has advertisers anymore

  75. I don't think this will change your response, but I just want to note that 'some people are genuinely believed' should have read 'some people are genuinely RELIEVED. ' Sorry for the typo.

    in response to Given that, what do you make of the fact that so often the excuses are 'Well, what more can he really do?' After the Trump administration made it pretty clear that a lot of American norms are enforced on the honor system, do you think some people are genuinely believed to see an administration that will pretend to be constrained when it isn't, even if that means that some of the things they supposedly wanted that administration to do won't get done?

    Ah! That does change things a bit! I think the bulk of my response would be the same, but it would be phrased as an agreement-with-elaboration, rather than an it's-more-complicted-than-that. Thanks for clarifying!

Anon commented:
Ian replied: