CuriousCat Archive Page 91 of 202

  1. There's another answer, one that's less satisfying rhetorically but I think reflective of how little most people actually know about the function of the prison system: having murderers, rapists, abusers, etc. out walking the streets is not so bad that it will make society collapse, and we know this because almost all of them already do

    Between 2/3 and 3/4 of rapes are never reported to the police, and of the fraction that are reported, most of them are never solved (or "cleared") by police, for example in Minneapolis the clearance rate for rape is 22%, about 1 in 5

    Add to all that the difficulty of obtaining a conviction, and you find that the probability that any given rape will result in jail time is in the low single-digits, between 5% and 3% nationally, maybe as low as 1% in some places

    Rape is an extreme case because it goes unreported the most and it has an extremely low clearance rate because cops don't give a shit about sexual violence, but even for something like murder, which among violent crimes has relatively high reporting and clearance rates, the odds are worse than 50-50 that any given murder will result in a conviction

    Police and prisons do not take the "bad guys" off the street, at least not in any significant number; if you can think up a program that will reduce violent crime by 10%, you're already doing miles better than almost any police department could do

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

    This is an excellent argument.

    The issue people have with this logic is that it's one thing to have a justice system that fails to convict its worst criminals; it's another thing for the justice system to no longer TRY. Many will feel that the IDEA of punitive justice is sound, we just need to get those clearance rates up. Switching people to a model of justice that is materially more successful but relies on a completely different idea of how to treat crime, in which our worst criminals are treated with firmness but not dehumanization, is going to feel very, very wrong. For most people, prison is not a question of efficacy, but of morals.

    I feel the morality of punishment and dehumanization is bad, but it takes A LOT of work to come round to that opinion.

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

    It's a good question! I won't pretend to have the answer. There's a lot of reading on police abolition I haven't had time for yet, so my knowledge is *very* basic at the moment. But the prerequisite question is this: what is the purpose of Weinstein's imprisonment?

    Assuming the purpose of prison is to keep him from harming anyone else: Weinstein was in a position of extreme power which he used to exploit and assault people. He has had that power stripped from him and the whole world knows his name and what he's done. Arguably that has done more to keep people safe than whether or not he is physically in jail. So we could consider: would the world be any more dangerous if he were a free man? What if the money spent on keeping him in jail were instead spent on mandatory rehabilitation processes? What if he were barred from positions of power but allowed to live in his own home? What about a home for people undergoing rehabilitation? There are a lot of possible answers to the question of "how do we keep abusers from abusing again?" but prison is never the BEST answer, it's just the simplest.

    Assuming the purpose is to punish him: I don't have a good answer to that because I don't think the punitive model is helpful. It doesn't do anything for me to know that Weinstein is suffering for the rest of his days. There are many reasons victims of abuse don't come forward, and one is this: getting someone convicted takes months, sometimes YEARS, during which time the whole world is discussing and debating your abuse, and during which your abuser remains a central figure in your life, where you have to sit in courtrooms with them again and again, hear their lies and justifications, have some people believe them, hear pundits debate whether YOU were the abuser, the liar, the manipulator, and wonder if the jury will believe them over you. And survivors weigh that against the satisfaction of the person being in jail and they decide it's not worth it. They would rather just never deal with this person again.

    So, like, even if I can't convince you the punitive model is immoral, I can point to the fact that the large majority of victims have declared it unsatisfactory. Maybe it feels good for you, as an onlooker, to know the bad man is in jail. But the people whom it's supposed to benefit most tell us every day that it's not worth it.

  3. It's not even making them that much money, he barely has advertisers anymore

    in response to Do think the Left should be pushing harder to get pundits like Tucker Carlson deplatformed?

    he is the most popular prime-time news show in America, so, unfortunately, he wrings a LOT of money from the handful of advertisers he still has, and, more importantly, *he keeps viewers on Fox*, which elevates all the shows that DO still have advertisers

    the fact that he has few advertisers is another example of how we don't have much leverage over him - we've already taken most of his revenue stream and Fox keeps him around

  4. 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?

    in response to To what extent, if any, do you think it's worthwhile to bring up the excuses policymakers give themselves for why they haven't done things? I think if you don't buy into it at all you might encourage people to become hopeless, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to accept the Biden administration's self-exonerations at face value.

    "Trump is an anomaly, the system is working, the reason some things aren't happening is not because of choices politicians have made but because they're LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, maybe they can change in the future if you do the long and slow work of evolving the system itself but hoo boy you'd better make sure liberals are in power the whole time."

    liberals don't believe the government restrains politicians because there's evidence for it; they believe because it's the story they prefer to be true.

  5. To what extent, if any, do you think it's worthwhile to bring up the excuses policymakers give themselves for why they haven't done things? I think if you don't buy into it at all you might encourage people to become hopeless, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to accept the Biden administration's self-exonerations at face value.

    in response to Different person, but my impression was that the administration is trying to rebuild the structure needed to accomodate the children; also that the minimum wage stuff was because of the senate The check thing was shitty though, and I don't know much about the rest

    it's always worth discussing what the excuses are. because, yes, they're excuses, but there are many excuses they COULD have made. why did they pick THIS one? what is it that makes them feel a given excuse will be the most convincing? what ideology are they cultivating in liberals by using a certain set of excuses? what belief system makes those excuses more acceptable to liberals than others?

    maybe this is just me, but the more I understand a problem the less hopeless I feel.

  6. Do think the Left should be pushing harder to get pundits like Tucker Carlson deplatformed?

    not sure the issue is a lack of effort, but a lack of leverage. Carlson is doing for Fox exactly what they want him to do and it's making them a lot of money. the Left doesn't have much to threaten him with.

  7. you ever think how funny it is that we call a popular medium "movie." Yeah bud I'm gonna go check out this lookie, my friend made it based on a readie they liked

    yeah, and a novel is called a "novel" because it's new, and The Last of Us Part II - a story about grief and trauma and the way revenge is both unfulfilling and self-destructive - is a "game" that you "play"

    but that's not what anyone thinks when they hear the words, because they associate them with their new meanings! it's called semantic drift and it's super interesting.

  8. How do vegan alternatives/replacements to non-vegan foods hold up, in a general sense? What's your favorite vegan cookie recipe?

    in response to What was the last thing you let go of while becoming a vegan?

    the chocolate chip cookies at Ovenly in Brooklyn are vegan and have won multiple Best Cookie in New York awards. not Best VEGAN Cookie - *Best Cookie in New York*. they are fantastic.

    I don't bake enough to have a favorite cookie recipe. I should really change that.

    the key to any good vegan substitute is that it try less to taste like the thing it's replacing than to taste *good* in the same environment. tempeh doesn't taste like bacon, but smoke it and eat it in a sandwich with avocado and lettuce and it'll taste damn good. the new Beyond and Impossible meats do a surprisingly good job reminding me of actual beef, but, honestly, I've gotten very accustomed to seitan and often prefer that in my burgers and sandwiches. the fact that you can rarely get the exact itch you got from meat and dairy scratched is what makes the transition hard; you're kind of rewiring your palate in the first year. but it's like getting used to any new cuisine - you'll find the good stuff in time.

  9. How to get internet people to care less about YouTubers and actually join a local campaign

    not mutually exclusive

  10. point of dissent maybe but i did like how across cultural and even political lines the working class instantly got behind "that's an expensive looking airstrike for a guy who owes me $2000" as a political rejoinder though, maybe it's not *nice* but it's affective.

    in response to What have been the biggest disappointments? From a very surface level outside perspective, it looked like it was going somewhat well (within the limits of him being a garbage liberal, as you put it).

  11. Wanna date me?

    what are your specs?

  12. Broadly, how do we distinguish between what members of the left we should exclude and what members of the left we shouldn't? Specifically, in which group should we put Socdoneleft?

    I don't know who that is.

    In general, I think we fixate too much on personalities and exclusion. Work towards concrete goals and see who's willing to work with you. Whether or not someone's actually aligned with leftism will be revealed by what they are and are not willing to work towards. And, if you find you keep aligning with people who seem like shitheads, maybe question whether you're working towards the right goals.

  13. what the fuck kind of structure do you need to "rebuild" when we're spending more money keeping children in fucking cells than it would cost to put them in a random hotel

    I swear to god people give the government way too much fucking slack when they decide to use state violence against children, fuck Biden and fuck ICE, raze every prison to the ground, child prisons go first

    in response to Different person, but my impression was that the administration is trying to rebuild the structure needed to accomodate the children; also that the minimum wage stuff was because of the senate The check thing was shitty though, and I don't know much about the rest

  14. What was the last thing you let go of while becoming a vegan?

    Honestly, it was foods that have trace amounts of animal ingredients. Veggie chicken nuggets that use egg as a binding agent, processed candies that have casein, that kind if thing. I think the *traditional* animal product I gave up last was yogurt.

  15. Different person, but my impression was that the administration is trying to rebuild the structure needed to accomodate the children; also that the minimum wage stuff was because of the senate

    The check thing was shitty though, and I don't know much about the rest

    in response to What have been the biggest disappointments? From a very surface level outside perspective, it looked like it was going somewhat well (within the limits of him being a garbage liberal, as you put it).

    It was Harris' choice not to override the Parliamentarian in the Senate.

  16. What have been the biggest disappointments? From a very surface level outside perspective, it looked like it was going somewhat well (within the limits of him being a garbage liberal, as you put it).

    in response to I voted for Biden on the grounds that it was harm reduction, but in light of the first few months of him being president I have been wondering, did us Biden-voting leftists make the right call? Does it still feel like voting for Biden was a meaningfully better choice than, say, organizing exclusively around non-electoral action & not voting, or casting a protest vote?

    oh let's see, there's the part where he welched on the $2000 check and said "I meant $2000 total with the check you already got!"

    or the bit where he decided not to let the kids at the border out of cages

    oh, and the thing where he yelled at Black advisors over Zoom for not appreciating him enough and said their message of "stop letting cops murder us" was too alienating

    gotta love how quickly our man bombed Syria!

    and he backed off raising the minimum wage once an unelected advisor said it couldn't be included in a bill

    it's only been three months

  18. I voted for Biden on the grounds that it was harm reduction, but in light of the first few months of him being president I have been wondering, did us Biden-voting leftists make the right call? Does it still feel like voting for Biden was a meaningfully better choice than, say, organizing exclusively around non-electoral action & not voting, or casting a protest vote?

    The Muslim Ban is ended. We've rejoined the Paris Agreement. The Keystone XL pipeline is dead. Several union collective bargaining rights have been restored. Trump's three-year "state of immigration emergency" is halted, as is construction of the border wall. The EPA, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Energy, and dozens of major positions are, for the first time in 4 years, staffed with competent people. The COVID stimulus is deeply flawed, yet far larger and more expansive than ever would have happened under Trump.

    Biden is a garbage liberal capable of doing so, so, so much more, and the speed with which he proved a disappointment is really staggering. But this is what harm reduction looks like. Your protest vote doesn't accomplish any of the above and you can organize around non-electoral action regardless.

  19. Thesis = democratic Socialism is bad because it can't go far enough
    Antithesis = democratic Socialism is bad because it's a slippery slope to Socialism

    Synthesis = democratic Socialism is bad because people keep confusing it with the social market economy

    Thoughts?

    do you mean social democracy?

  22. if politics became solved what would you do instead

    not sure we agree on what "politics" means

  23. 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?

    in response to I see where I came off condescending, and I apologize. I won't do so again. I know you do this for a living. I was only making statements I considered to be self-evident. I do not consider "living in a capitalist society is preferable to dictatorship and civil war" to be a controversial statement. The risks of revolution; economic or otherwise, are apparent to anyone who watches the news. And I hope it's not presumptuous to point out that for someone who doesn't yearn for revolution, you sure do throw the *word* around a lot. As for my assertion that European social democracies continue to endure, I may not have done much research, but I know the NHS still exists. These people aren't paying for healthcare. Black children aren't being shot in the streets by a police force outfitted with military ordinance. I know these countries have their own problems, but in many obvious ways, they're still doing leagues better than we are, and have been for decades. All as a result of enduring social democracy.

    you'd need to demonstrate that the risk of a revolution leading to a dictatorship is significantly greater than the risk of a dictatorship arising from other means

    not saying you're wrong, I just don't want to argue with your assumptions, you know?

  24. You should finish Hilda's second season. It is very good.

    maybe it is, but I'm probably not gonna do that

  25. What if slightly shitty, precarious social democracy actually is the best of all possible worlds?

    then it's hopefully what we'll end up with when our less-shitty plan fails

  27. Have the anons been getting more verbose?

    Maybe I've just been answering the verbose ones more.

  28. Diff anon- You don't even have to point to Hitler to make this point. Trump just tried to stage a coup so that he could grab dictatorial power. Had a few things gone different, had Trump lost by a margin of few points instead of a landslide, he might have been able to keep the presidency just by lying about the election being stolen from him, and if a full fascist take over wouldn't have sparked a civil war in America, it's hard to imagine what would in this current day and age.

    If you don't want to have dictatorships and civil wars, maybe we need to move away from the system that almost caused one a mere four months ago?

    in response to I see where I came off condescending, and I apologize. I won't do so again. I know you do this for a living. I was only making statements I considered to be self-evident. I do not consider "living in a capitalist society is preferable to dictatorship and civil war" to be a controversial statement. The risks of revolution; economic or otherwise, are apparent to anyone who watches the news. And I hope it's not presumptuous to point out that for someone who doesn't yearn for revolution, you sure do throw the *word* around a lot. As for my assertion that European social democracies continue to endure, I may not have done much research, but I know the NHS still exists. These people aren't paying for healthcare. Black children aren't being shot in the streets by a police force outfitted with military ordinance. I know these countries have their own problems, but in many obvious ways, they're still doing leagues better than we are, and have been for decades. All as a result of enduring social democracy.

    Yeah. I suppose the fact that it failed could be touted as proof that our democratic norms are holding. Feels a little like the "rats are dying, but that doesn't mean there's a plague" mentality.

  29. Also, while it may be true that European social democracies are still better off in some regards, it is getting worse, which was your point. Economically, more and more people are pushed into precarious working conditions. Homelessness has been on the rise for a long time. Rent is increasing so much that many people are forced out of the cities. The Covid crisis is still not under control in large part because the government (this is from a German point of view) refuses to shut down the Economy (sounds familiar?).

    Politically, right wing demagogs sit in many parliaments. In Denmark, they're discussing forcible relocation to reduce the number of people from immigrant families living in certain burrows. And while there aren't mass shootings on the scale in the US (though I'm not sure that "social democracy" is why we have gun control), politically motivated violence is on a level we haven't seen in decades. People from minority communities have been killed.

    So, yeah, we "endure". But boy, is there tension.

    in response to I see where I came off condescending, and I apologize. I won't do so again. I know you do this for a living. I was only making statements I considered to be self-evident. I do not consider "living in a capitalist society is preferable to dictatorship and civil war" to be a controversial statement. The risks of revolution; economic or otherwise, are apparent to anyone who watches the news. And I hope it's not presumptuous to point out that for someone who doesn't yearn for revolution, you sure do throw the *word* around a lot. As for my assertion that European social democracies continue to endure, I may not have done much research, but I know the NHS still exists. These people aren't paying for healthcare. Black children aren't being shot in the streets by a police force outfitted with military ordinance. I know these countries have their own problems, but in many obvious ways, they're still doing leagues better than we are, and have been for decades. All as a result of enduring social democracy.

    Yeah, I mean, if the argument is "social democracy has not 100% failed," I'm not sure that's a great argument? The question is: does this have to be as good as it gets? And what are the causes of these persistent problems?

  31. What animal, plant and planet should be renamed?

    they will all be called Tommy!

  32. I don't think that's actually right, he committed suicide after a CIA-backed coup

    in response to Attempts have been made One historical example might be the administration of Salvador Allende in Chile, but then, he didn't get very far before the CIA (actually the CIA, not the usual left "the CIA did it" no really it was long enough ago that we know 100% it was in fact the CIA), the Chilean military, and the Chilean bourgeoisie overthrew him in a coup that installed the notoriously brutal dictator Pinochet.

    I will amend my statement to "the literal CIA is directly responsible for his death"

  33. Have you heard about that animated series on Netflix called Hilda?

    Yeah, I watched the first season. It's *incredibly* charming in the beginning, but, like a lot of Netflix series, I felt it drifted down to "pleasantly watchable" after a few episodes. I started watching the second season but didn't feel excited enough to finish.

  34. I see where I came off condescending, and I apologize. I won't do so again. I know you do this for a living. I was only making statements I considered to be self-evident. I do not consider "living in a capitalist society is preferable to dictatorship and civil war" to be a controversial statement. The risks of revolution; economic or otherwise, are apparent to anyone who watches the news. And I hope it's not presumptuous to point out that for someone who doesn't yearn for revolution, you sure do throw the *word* around a lot.

    As for my assertion that European social democracies continue to endure, I may not have done much research, but I know the NHS still exists. These people aren't paying for healthcare. Black children aren't being shot in the streets by a police force outfitted with military ordinance. I know these countries have their own problems, but in many obvious ways, they're still doing leagues better than we are, and have been for decades. All as a result of enduring social democracy.

    in response to I likewise understand what *you're* saying, but I feel like you haven't thought it through. You talk about the risks of social democracy, but have you not considered the risks of *revolution*? To me, the risks of a social democracy backsliding into unregulated capitalism are far exceeded by the risks of *civil war and dictatorship* posed by revolutionary action. Because as much as leftist rhetoric likes to paint capitalism as the worst thing ever, a hell of a lot more people have died a hell of a lot more violently from war and authoritarian regimes than have done so by even capitalisms worst excesses. You say that social democracies are built after huge economic crises; that even the COVID crisis didn't do it - but we're still in it! And because of it people are more primed than ever to accept progressive policies. You talk about places where social democracy is challenged by the right wing, but the only place that social democracy can be said to have outright *failed* is the US, mainly due to the myth of American Exceptionalism. The rest of the countries you cited social democracy is still going strong, some progressive policies faltering but never failing outright. You talk about the tension that social democracy creates, but you fail to realize that the tension isn't capitalism vs democracy, it's humanity's base selfish impulses vs "civilization itself". That tension has always existed, and no ideology or system of government will ever make it go away. That tension is natural, and there's no escaping it. Try as you might, you can't de-incentivize self-interest out of the human condition, no matter what you do. The only way to maintain an altruistic society is through constant vigilance. And so that tension is the system working as intended. All that is why I believe social democracy is truly the best we can do.

    I'll just point out that Hitler's dictatorship occurred in a capitalist society, and he came to power through political machinations, not revolution. Capitalism is no guarantee that you won't have a dictatorship.

    And I throw the word around a lot because people ask me about it.

  35. For some reason, if people are being slaughtered with bombs and bullets, we call it heroic when they resist, but if people are being inexorably bled to death by the quiet desperation of poverty, resistance is unjustified, uncalled-for, violent, regardless of how the actual body counts add up

    Those who do long for revolution are not unaware of the inherent threats it poses to human life and prosperity, they believe those threats to be less dire than the status quo, and in the face of the events of the past year, it's hard to say that they're unequivocally wrong.

    in response to I likewise understand what *you're* saying, but I feel like you haven't thought it through. You talk about the risks of social democracy, but have you not considered the risks of *revolution*? To me, the risks of a social democracy backsliding into unregulated capitalism are far exceeded by the risks of *civil war and dictatorship* posed by revolutionary action. Because as much as leftist rhetoric likes to paint capitalism as the worst thing ever, a hell of a lot more people have died a hell of a lot more violently from war and authoritarian regimes than have done so by even capitalisms worst excesses. You say that social democracies are built after huge economic crises; that even the COVID crisis didn't do it - but we're still in it! And because of it people are more primed than ever to accept progressive policies. You talk about places where social democracy is challenged by the right wing, but the only place that social democracy can be said to have outright *failed* is the US, mainly due to the myth of American Exceptionalism. The rest of the countries you cited social democracy is still going strong, some progressive policies faltering but never failing outright. You talk about the tension that social democracy creates, but you fail to realize that the tension isn't capitalism vs democracy, it's humanity's base selfish impulses vs "civilization itself". That tension has always existed, and no ideology or system of government will ever make it go away. That tension is natural, and there's no escaping it. Try as you might, you can't de-incentivize self-interest out of the human condition, no matter what you do. The only way to maintain an altruistic society is through constant vigilance. And so that tension is the system working as intended. All that is why I believe social democracy is truly the best we can do.

    I mean, US citizens are slaughtered with bullets every day, many of them children in school, and we've managed to treat that as normal. Whatever is commonplace in your life is worthy of critique, even reform, but never revolution. But what's commonplace over THERE? Clearly it's a hellhole for NOT revolting.

  36. Attempts have been made
    One historical example might be the administration of Salvador Allende in Chile, but then, he didn't get very far before the CIA (actually the CIA, not the usual left "the CIA did it" no really it was long enough ago that we know 100% it was in fact the CIA), the Chilean military, and the Chilean bourgeoisie overthrew him in a coup that installed the notoriously brutal dictator Pinochet.

    in response to Different anon. I am social Democrat, at least in terms of short to medium term goals. I agree with what you say here; in a social democracy, capitalists absolutely would attempt to undermine and reverse policies that restrict their power. But until leftists come up with a model for achieving an egalitarian postcapitalist society and economy, isn’t social democracy the most feasible (to use your word) model for helping people who are harmed by capitalism. Because something like that has existed in the United States and in many other countries. On a side note, personally, I like the model you suggest for moving from social democracy to a “functionally socialist” economy in your previous answer. Even though, as you note, it has never occurred before, I have to ask has it ever been attempted before?

    I don't know a lot about Allende, but the one thing I did know is that the literal CIA assassinated him

  37. I likewise understand what *you're* saying, but I feel like you haven't thought it through.

    You talk about the risks of social democracy, but have you not considered the risks of *revolution*? To me, the risks of a social democracy backsliding into unregulated capitalism are far exceeded by the risks of *civil war and dictatorship* posed by revolutionary action. Because as much as leftist rhetoric likes to paint capitalism as the worst thing ever, a hell of a lot more people have died a hell of a lot more violently from war and authoritarian regimes than have done so by even capitalisms worst excesses.

    You say that social democracies are built after huge economic crises; that even the COVID crisis didn't do it - but we're still in it! And because of it people are more primed than ever to accept progressive policies. You talk about places where social democracy is challenged by the right wing, but the only place that social democracy can be said to have outright *failed* is the US, mainly due to the myth of American Exceptionalism. The rest of the countries you cited social democracy is still going strong, some progressive policies faltering but never failing outright.

    You talk about the tension that social democracy creates, but you fail to realize that the tension isn't capitalism vs democracy, it's humanity's base selfish impulses vs "civilization itself". That tension has always existed, and no ideology or system of government will ever make it go away. That tension is natural, and there's no escaping it. Try as you might, you can't de-incentivize self-interest out of the human condition, no matter what you do. The only way to maintain an altruistic society is through constant vigilance. And so that tension is the system working as intended. All that is why I believe social democracy is truly the best we can do.

    in response to I think a lot of leftists are stuck on the "what to do" question. Which in my opinion is exactly the problem. No one can agree on anything, and so nothing gets done, through collective action or otherwise. It's why I'm in favor of social democracy; Biden and the democrats could push through universal health care, gun control and social safety nets tomorrow (at the expense of reputations and political careers, to be sure) and immediately bring the US up to the standard of the rest of the western world, while measurably helping millions of people. Of course, capitalism still exists under social democracy. But to me, that would be better than thumbing your nose at liberals while you wait for leftists to collectively agree on some "new method" that can somehow be brought about by non-violent revolution. That sounds like a fantasy to me, while social democracy has been proven to work.

    I appreciate this discussion, but I want to to gently point out that "I feel like you haven't thought it through" is very condescending. Trust me, I have thought a lot about all of this.

    I don't yearn for revolution, and, yes, one reason why is it tends to go very badly for a lot of people. I, again, stress that general strikes and such are the kinds of resistance I'm most interested in. I don't know if they will be enough, but I would hope a primarily economic revolution would be LESS bloody than a purely military one.

    But your statement about civil war and dictatorship being more violent than revolution is just... wrong. I'm sorry, it just is. It's because we don't count deaths caused by capitalism. People talk about Stalinism and say "communist dictatorship killed 9 million people," but, if you applied the same metrics to capitalism, than British imperial capitalism killed roughly one billion in India alone. Poverty, wars waged to justify the military industrial complex, environmental catastrophes, these ALL have annual death tolls that are direct results of modern capitalism. More Americans died from our government's refusal to shut down the economy during the COVID crisis than died in all of World War II. If you are measuring the actual cost of human life caused by capitalism's worst excesses, it is far, far more deadly than any war in history.

    Re: how well European social democracies are doing, what I offered you was "I don't know all the history, but I know these examples," and your response is "your examples are wrong, therefore they're doing fine." You're not offering me history or economic analysis; it seems like you have no more information than I have, you're just telling me I've failed to convince you. Have you researched your assumptions that they're doing fine? It's an easy thing to say "European social democracies are holding strong" and put the onus on me to contradict you, but I question how well-supported that belief is.

    And I'm going to resist any broad statements about "human nature." Humanity has looked a lot of different ways throughout a lot of different cultures. I maybe can't convince you that the tensions you see have not always existed - are, themselves, products of our current culture - but maybe you'll grant me that, while I can't cure people of self-interest (and never claimed I could), it is possible to have a system that isn't entirely BUILT on it, and that actively punishes altruism?

  38. even if social democracy is doomed, i feel like denying those policies for the sake of hoping in the future for a more drastic revolution is accelerationism

    in response to Different anon. I am social Democrat, at least in terms of short to medium term goals. I agree with what you say here; in a social democracy, capitalists absolutely would attempt to undermine and reverse policies that restrict their power. But until leftists come up with a model for achieving an egalitarian postcapitalist society and economy, isn’t social democracy the most feasible (to use your word) model for helping people who are harmed by capitalism. Because something like that has existed in the United States and in many other countries. On a side note, personally, I like the model you suggest for moving from social democracy to a “functionally socialist” economy in your previous answer. Even though, as you note, it has never occurred before, I have to ask has it ever been attempted before?

    I've heard a sort of hand-wavey, "if we refuse to vote for liberal capitalists then the Democrats will move left to court our votes," but, since there's really no reason to believe that's what Dems would do (they've certainly never responded to a failed campaign that way in my lifetime), it seems more about maintaining ideological purity than having an actual strategy

    or, yeah, accelerationism

  39. Also check out Accomplices Not Allies from Indigenous Action

    in response to What's the best way to empower BIPOC?

    Oh, I have that open in a tab on my phone! Glad you reminded me of it.

  42. idk if anyone's asked you this before, but what was the first game that made you cry, and why?

    well, I'm guessing you mean, what's the first game that moved me to tears? because, like a lot of kids, I often started crying if I died or had something remotely startling happen. I mean, I was playing games when I was 4.

    I honestly don't know the first time a game made me cry just from its storytelling! I grew up playing adventure games, so games as a storytelling medium has been normal for me my whole life. I don't remember what the first movie or book to make me cry were because that's just, you know, a thing stories do sometimes. Games were the same. So I kinda think they've made me cry from time to time my whole life and the first is lost to history.

  43. Different anon. I am social Democrat, at least in terms of short to medium term goals. I agree with what you say here; in a social democracy, capitalists absolutely would attempt to undermine and reverse policies that restrict their power. But until leftists come up with a model for achieving an egalitarian postcapitalist society and economy, isn’t social democracy the most feasible (to use your word) model for helping people who are harmed by capitalism. Because something like that has existed in the United States and in many other countries.

    On a side note, personally, I like the model you suggest for moving from social democracy to a “functionally socialist” economy in your previous answer. Even though, as you note, it has never occurred before, I have to ask has it ever been attempted before?

    in response to I think a lot of leftists are stuck on the "what to do" question. Which in my opinion is exactly the problem. No one can agree on anything, and so nothing gets done, through collective action or otherwise. It's why I'm in favor of social democracy; Biden and the democrats could push through universal health care, gun control and social safety nets tomorrow (at the expense of reputations and political careers, to be sure) and immediately bring the US up to the standard of the rest of the western world, while measurably helping millions of people. Of course, capitalism still exists under social democracy. But to me, that would be better than thumbing your nose at liberals while you wait for leftists to collectively agree on some "new method" that can somehow be brought about by non-violent revolution. That sounds like a fantasy to me, while social democracy has been proven to work.

    I fully agree that, if you have the opportunity to make things better under capitalism, you absolutely have to do it. I support social democratic policies, I just disagree that they should be the end goal. Hell, I even think you should adpt liberal capitalist policies in the short term if they can empower you and your allies. (I've actually caught a lot of flak from leftists for saying voting Biden is the moral option even though he's a capitalist, because there's more we can accomplish under him than under Trump.)

    As to whether turning social democracy into socialism has ever happened before, I'm afraid I don't have an answer. This is one of those "I have a lot of history and theory still to read" moments. I mean, I gather a lot of social democracies have socialist parties that are represented in their government, and I would imagine full socialism would be their end goal? But I don't know how true that is, or even if political parties calling themselves socialist means they are in the Marxist sense.

  44. Different OP, but is there anything wrong with making money from the currently trending cryptocurrency?

    in response to If I bought stock in a morally vacant organization, or some kind of crypto, and used the money earned to go directly to unions/co-ops/environmental organizations, is that helping anything or just kind of doing a bad thing and then doing a kind of OK thing?

    it's more that most people who have "money" in crytocurrency have no way of converting it into money they can SPEND

    also crypto uses as much energy as a small country

  45. Regarding the discussion on social democracy vs socialism. I assume that you do support policies like Medicare for All, increased funding for public education, and ending the drug war for the sake of reducing human suffering in the short term, yes? Because as someone who thinks that capitalism is bad, I also think it's important to advocate for improving the standard of living within capitalism, while simultaneously working to transition away from capitalism. I think it's totally feasible to do both. I think it's possible to pressure politicians like Biden to support more left-leaning policies, but it's not realistic to convince them to support socialism. But at the same time the younger generations in the US are more open to alternatives to capitalism than previous generations and content creators like you can reach out to them.

    At the end of the day, what I really care about is reducing human suffering, and that can be approached through both short term and long term strategies.

    100% agree.

  46. What's the best way to empower BIPOC?

    I'm not the best person to ask, but I have been looking around for good resources on white allyship as it's relevant to the next Alt-Right Playbook. I'll have more links in the future, but for now I think this one is mostly pretty good: https://www.theroot.com/12-ways-to-be-a-white-ally-to-black-people-1790876784

    It is safe to assume any question you have about white allyship has been answered by POC in a dozen resources online.

  47. Not them (or the OP) but john duncan has started making really interesting takes on this basis going issue by issue for a little while, he focuses on the ways the existing society is doing badly (neoliberalism is his PhD, so it's what he actually knows about) but he always brings up existing and ongoing attempts to organise outside of the state and market (both of which are riddled with market logic in a way outside of democratic control) and actually solve problems, its a good place to start if someone is up for anti-capitalism but wants to understand these issues more deeply before committing to an -ism.

    in response to Sometimes I wish I could argue with your anons for you cause I actually do have a bunch of ideas for what to replace capitalism with I'm positive he's never even heard of

    where should I look for these takes? I'm not sure which John Duncan you're referring to!

  48. We're heading head long into 00s aesthetics, what do you hope comes back from then

    I feel like, post 90's, I have no sense what the aesthetics of any decade were. Once the internet was ubiquitous things felt very fragmented, people having the freedom to pursue what interests them instead of relying on mass media to put the same things in front of everybody. I have no sense of what the 00's sound or fashion or attitude was. I mean, I feel like a lot of the music and fashion was just repurposed 80's aesthetics? Or was that just what was popular among my circle of Northern Californians at the time? Video games and big-budget movies, at least, still had some unifying looks; movies had that "we've just discovered color correction and haven't reigned ourselves in yet" phase of, like, the middle Harry Potter films, and video games were, what, PS2 and GameCube?

    So, yeah, I think aesthetics I recognize will come into fashion, but it'll be hard to say "it feels like the 00's again." More likely it'll be "it feels like [specific thing from that time]." But maybe that's just me.

  49. A disturbing this I've noticed with regards to this whole kerfuffle is that a lot of supposed "leftist" and "progressives" seem to be acting the same way as you described in your GG video, constantly looking for the next threat, the next bad person, the next breadtuber or politician to unmask, to shame, to cancel. I'm just left here wondering if there's anything to be done about them, or do we just silently look away and not give them our attention?

    in response to So what’s your take on all this Lindsay Ellis stuff?

    I appreciate your curiosity, but you're asking me a follow-up question to something I just said I don't want to discuss, so I'm gonna pass on this one.

  50. What's a period of history that video games should explore further

    the Paris commune

  51. What if people took to the anti-choice/evolution bible thumper route and started making billboards across the midwest supporting police abolition, unions, etc

    Cops would tear them down.

  52. If you're under fire for doing something problematic, wouldn't the best course of action be to do something to materially benefit the marginalized group you supposedly harmed (ie a fundraiser for BIPOC)?

    "best course of action" meaning what? it may be a form of making amends in the purely moral sense, but it's pretty common for people to fuck up and then just donate money to a charity and act like that's enough. it's not going to convince anybody on its own. Penny Arcade have done that like 3 times.

  53. Yes, exactly. I'm just always very amused by this way of arguing; I just imagine them in the start of the 19th century saying we shouldn't abandon the monarchy because every time we've tried (Cromwell, Robespierre, L'Ouverture) it hasn't ended well (except Haiti).

    in response to I'm certainly not the OP, or any other possibly poster in this thread, but I have to wonder: do you think that the person asking you this thinks that we somehow got capitalism because a bunch of capitalists had tinkered in a lab and developed a successor to feudalism beforehand? Or would they acknowledge that the passing from feudalism and universal monarchism to the current liberal democratic order happened in fits and starts and was theorized afterwards? It might help clarify their thinking.

  54. If I bought stock in a morally vacant organization, or some kind of crypto, and used the money earned to go directly to unions/co-ops/environmental organizations, is that helping anything or just kind of doing a bad thing and then doing a kind of OK thing?

    you lost me at "making money from crypto"

  55. I think a lot of leftists are stuck on the "what to do" question. Which in my opinion is exactly the problem. No one can agree on anything, and so nothing gets done, through collective action or otherwise. It's why I'm in favor of social democracy; Biden and the democrats could push through universal health care, gun control and social safety nets tomorrow (at the expense of reputations and political careers, to be sure) and immediately bring the US up to the standard of the rest of the western world, while measurably helping millions of people. Of course, capitalism still exists under social democracy. But to me, that would be better than thumbing your nose at liberals while you wait for leftists to collectively agree on some "new method" that can somehow be brought about by non-violent revolution. That sounds like a fantasy to me, while social democracy has been proven to work.

    in response to If it helps, I'm not the OP. The first two questions in this thread aren't me. For the record, I think you keep getting asked this question because people want to make sure you're not one of those leftists who fantasizes about violent revolution. About burning "the system" down for the sake of it and worrying about the rest later. Because those kinds of leftists are often anti-capitalists who think literally any system or no system at all would be better than the one we have. And that kind of thinking has historically lead to dictatorships and failed states. For whatever it's worth, you've answered my question. Democratic socialism. That's good! Your position may change, and that's fine. That's normal. But the fact that you have an answer to what you'd do if the revolution happened tomorrow means that you care what happens after. And that's all I for one wanted to know.

    I get what you're saying, and I used to feel the same.

    What swung me the other way was the realization that social democracy is a system in which capitalism and democracy are in tension. It is in the interest of democratic institutions to keep tight restrictions on the market, and it's in the interest of the market to undermine those restrictions. I don't see that these tensions are sustainable. When markets are regulated, the incentive for businesses is to use their still substantial resources towards political reforms that deregulate the market. In response, democracy can employ more regulations, try to keep the money out of politics, restrict the right to lobby, etc. etc. And, in turn, capitalists will try to outsmart THOSE regulations. It's a constant battle.

    And, however long that battle lasts, it's almost always the market that wins. We managed a heavily-regulated capitalism here in the states from the end of World War II until the 70's. That's thirty years out of the last century. Reaganomics have lasted far longer. European states that we've known to have strong labor laws and safety nets - France, Spain, Germany, the UK - are all dealing with reactionary right-wing politicians trying to revert their economy to deregulated capitalism, all with some success. Even the Nordic states, whose social democracies have held since the 1930's, saw rollbacks of some progressive policies in the 80's. Every year the market is trying to reassert control, and there is always a risk it will succeed, and we'll be back to late capitalism. We've seen this happen in plenty of countries throughout history.

    What I HAVEN'T seen is the opposite, where democracy decisively wins the battle. Like, what would that even be? I'm guessing it would be for a social democracy to slowly erode the influence of the market until the state is functionally socialist. And I don't know of any time socialism has come about that way.

    So you've got a battle where democracy can wield greater power than capitalism but never decisively wins, but capitalism CAN win, often does given enough time, and takes DECADES to turn back into social democracy, if such a change is even possible.

    And, like... it's not like the map to American social democracy is clear, either! Such things are usually built after huge economic crises, when the market fails so catastrophically that it's feasible to push bold policy - Roosevelt's New Deal, the "grand promise" of the Nordic countries, both of which grew from economic crises in the 30's. But what's it take to bring that back in the States? The Great Recession didn't do it. The COVID crisis didn't do it - a literal pandemic couldn't get us Medicare for All, which is only ONE social democratic policy and in many ways it's not even as progressive as Canada's system!

    I get that it seems more feasible than actually ending capitalism, but... not by as much as you think.

  56. Different anon. Just wanted to add to this. The point of socialism (regardless of the specific tendency) is collective action and democratic decision making. The point isn't for one person to make decisions for everyone else. It's irrelevant what any individual thinks should replace capitalism because what WILL replace capitalism will be (should be) decided by the people. Not a person.

    But, just for fun. I am curious about democratic socialism. I'm personally more familiar with Marxism-Leninism and Anarchism broadly. I'm curious, if we did collectively implement democratic socialism tomorrow, what would you like that to look like? I know you said you are in the process of deciding which system you prefer, and I respect that your opinions may change with time. But, for now, can I ask what is it about democratic socialism that you like?

    in response to Allow me to clarify: I believe you when you say you don't wish to abolish capitalism without a replacement. But that's in spite of the many, many, many times you've stated a desire to abolish capitalism without offering a viable alternative. And when anyone asks you about this, you accuse them of bad faith even though, truly, nobody's trying to accuse you of anything. All we're doing is taking your words at face value. Which is all we can do because we're anons on CuriousCat who don't know you personally. All we have are your words to go on. And what you've *said*, repeatedly, is that you want to see capitalism torn down while actively admitting *you don't know* what to replace it with. And a borderline-revolutionary statement like that is a little bit more alarming, and invites more obvious assumptions, than saying you don't want a pizza party for your birthday.

    My entryway into leftism was Orwell's essays, so I am aware a big part of my sympathy for democratic socialism comes from that. I can't give much of an answer to this other than that I want to avoid the governmental consolidation we sometimes see in communist states (which I acknowledge are not indicative of what most communists actually want) but also worry that a fully stateless anarchy would have trouble ensuring the rights of all individuals.

    This is a lot of gut feelings without the history and theory to back it up, which is why I usually balk at discussing further.

  57. If it helps, I'm not the OP. The first two questions in this thread aren't me. For the record, I think you keep getting asked this question because people want to make sure you're not one of those leftists who fantasizes about violent revolution. About burning "the system" down for the sake of it and worrying about the rest later. Because those kinds of leftists are often anti-capitalists who think literally any system or no system at all would be better than the one we have. And that kind of thinking has historically lead to dictatorships and failed states.

    For whatever it's worth, you've answered my question. Democratic socialism. That's good! Your position may change, and that's fine. That's normal. But the fact that you have an answer to what you'd do if the revolution happened tomorrow means that you care what happens after. And that's all I for one wanted to know.

    in response to Allow me to clarify: I believe you when you say you don't wish to abolish capitalism without a replacement. But that's in spite of the many, many, many times you've stated a desire to abolish capitalism without offering a viable alternative. And when anyone asks you about this, you accuse them of bad faith even though, truly, nobody's trying to accuse you of anything. All we're doing is taking your words at face value. Which is all we can do because we're anons on CuriousCat who don't know you personally. All we have are your words to go on. And what you've *said*, repeatedly, is that you want to see capitalism torn down while actively admitting *you don't know* what to replace it with. And a borderline-revolutionary statement like that is a little bit more alarming, and invites more obvious assumptions, than saying you don't want a pizza party for your birthday.

    I feel, both on this CC and in my videos, that I've pretty explicitly *not* yearned for violent revolution, and talked rather a lot about the appeal of general strikes, even if I'm not sure how to make one work and whether or not true change is possible without *some* violence. It's one of the reasons I feel so stuck on the "what to do" question - if you don't think the ways this has been done before led to the society you want to build, you kind of have to invent a new method, or at least graft bits of other methods together, and that's complex and time-consuming.

  58. Sometimes I wish I could argue with your anons for you cause I actually do have a bunch of ideas for what to replace capitalism with I'm positive he's never even heard of

    in response to Allow me to clarify: I believe you when you say you don't wish to abolish capitalism without a replacement. But that's in spite of the many, many, many times you've stated a desire to abolish capitalism without offering a viable alternative. And when anyone asks you about this, you accuse them of bad faith even though, truly, nobody's trying to accuse you of anything. All we're doing is taking your words at face value. Which is all we can do because we're anons on CuriousCat who don't know you personally. All we have are your words to go on. And what you've *said*, repeatedly, is that you want to see capitalism torn down while actively admitting *you don't know* what to replace it with. And a borderline-revolutionary statement like that is a little bit more alarming, and invites more obvious assumptions, than saying you don't want a pizza party for your birthday.

    I would love to hear them.

    (also I recommend not assuming anons are male by default)

  59. I'm certainly not the OP, or any other possibly poster in this thread, but I have to wonder: do you think that the person asking you this thinks that we somehow got capitalism because a bunch of capitalists had tinkered in a lab and developed a successor to feudalism beforehand? Or would they acknowledge that the passing from feudalism and universal monarchism to the current liberal democratic order happened in fits and starts and was theorized afterwards? It might help clarify their thinking.

    in response to Allow me to clarify: I believe you when you say you don't wish to abolish capitalism without a replacement. But that's in spite of the many, many, many times you've stated a desire to abolish capitalism without offering a viable alternative. And when anyone asks you about this, you accuse them of bad faith even though, truly, nobody's trying to accuse you of anything. All we're doing is taking your words at face value. Which is all we can do because we're anons on CuriousCat who don't know you personally. All we have are your words to go on. And what you've *said*, repeatedly, is that you want to see capitalism torn down while actively admitting *you don't know* what to replace it with. And a borderline-revolutionary statement like that is a little bit more alarming, and invites more obvious assumptions, than saying you don't want a pizza party for your birthday.

    Fair, but, also, the idea is generally that post-capitalist society will come about through revolution, and I'm saying things like "we should abolish the stock market," so, yeah, they're going to assume I mean things happening in one fell swoop.

    I think a better comparison would be the American Revolution, where they mostly just had a bunch of rhetoric when they declared independence, wrote the Articles of Confederation, watched it fail for *eight years*, and then declared a do-over and held a Constitutional Convention and debated for four months on how the new government should function.

    Like, even if I *had* a plan for how our post-capitalist society should look, it's a decision that's gonna be made by thousands of people. I feel it's most important that I have a set of principles and an ability to negotiate while holding my ground.

  60. Allow me to clarify: I believe you when you say you don't wish to abolish capitalism without a replacement. But that's in spite of the many, many, many times you've stated a desire to abolish capitalism without offering a viable alternative. And when anyone asks you about this, you accuse them of bad faith even though, truly, nobody's trying to accuse you of anything. All we're doing is taking your words at face value. Which is all we can do because we're anons on CuriousCat who don't know you personally. All we have are your words to go on. And what you've *said*, repeatedly, is that you want to see capitalism torn down while actively admitting *you don't know* what to replace it with. And a borderline-revolutionary statement like that is a little bit more alarming, and invites more obvious assumptions, than saying you don't want a pizza party for your birthday.

    in response to That's...not really the same thing. You're a public figure. A popular leftist with a fairly substantial following. Like it or not, the views you put forth carry a certain amount of weight with your audience. So when you, for example, say we should abolish capitalism (which I remind you is the economic system utilized by most of the industrialized world) without putting forth any ideas of what we should replace it with, people are going to listen, and more than a few will take those remarks at face value in a way you might not intend.

    I don't know if you're the same anon who's been talking to me about this off and on for the last several weeks or not, so I don't know how much of this discourse you've seen. I will give you the answers I have already given:

    - I believe capitalism to be fundamentally unsustainable and immoral and that it must be replaced.
    - I am in the process of determining what I think it should be replaced with.
    - Since we're not likely to be in position to replace capitalism anytime soon, I don't feel there is a problem with me not having an answer just yet.
    - I think it is sensible and moral for people to say that capitalism is broken before they know what should be done about it.

    I do not respond to everyone who asks me about the end of capitalism with accusations of bad faith. It is specifically the times when people (you?) respond with "oh, so you don't care what we replace it with?" or "oh, so you think no system at all would be an improvement?" And, yes, I think that is dishonest. That is either bad faith or extremely motivated reasoning. And I'm very, very tired of being pressured into treating it like a perfectly reasonable question when *nobody actually thinks like that*.

    In my experience, people ask this question when you say "capitalism is bad" and they want to shift the conversation to "what are you going to do about it?" Because, as soon as you give an answer, as soon as you say "communism" or "democratic socialism" or "anarcho-collectivism," all they have to do is say why that system always fails or can't be implemented and the conversation is over. And then we're at an impasse; if I can't demonstrably prove that my replacement is viable, they can default back to "capitalism is the best we can do." They're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince them, so there's nowhere for the conversation to go.

    But that's not what we were talking about! I was talking about the flaws I see in capitalism, and this interlocutor has not offered up how to address these flaws, hasn't even said they can BE addressed, because they changed the conversation! And, you're right, it's not always bad faith; I've made similar argument by reflex when I felt I needed to defend a core belief. But it's more about proving the other person ignorant or hypocritical than meaningfully engaging with the flaws and limits of capitalism, and I'm not here for that.

    But, if all you need is an answer: if the revolution happened tomorrow, I would implement democratic socialism. But I can't promise that will still be my position when I've gotten through the history and theory I want to read.

  61. Is how we use our privilege always a choice?

    you have enough wiggle room in what you do with your privilege that you have to take responsibility for it, but you don't have full control over how the world treats you

  62. Is being privileged a choice?

    nope!

  63. ....What Final Fantasy games are you playing?

    in response to Best job in Final Fantasy

    the good one

  64. So what’s your take on all this Lindsay Ellis stuff?

    I am friendly with Lindsay so I'm not objective, and I'm a white guy who's never been cancelled so I don't feel my opinion has much authority

    and a lot of people have asked me to weigh in and, given the above, it feels less like an attempt to have a discussion than a purity test, you know? not saying that's what YOU'RE doing, I selected this Q because it seemed pretty good faith. but that's why I'm staying out of it. I don't feel there's much I can say that will make things better and there's a real risk that even bringing it up will make things worse.

  65. After your pic on twitter just now, I'm a bit in awe. How do you groom your beard?

    the mask messes with its shape so much I've partially given up on grooming it. but I have a beard comb and brush and some beard oil that I use sporadically.

    when lockdown ends, I'm either going to start taking proper care of it or shave it off, haven't decided yet.

  66. I’m a be real with you: I don’t think those are in Final Fantasy,

    in response to Best job in Final Fantasy

    maybe you're playing the wrong ones

  67. Best job in Final Fantasy

    mostly ze jobs we call blow

  68. Have you ever struggled with wallowing in your regrets of the past? How did you push past that, if you have

    Mostly no, with the handful of exceptions being more personal than I'm gonna reveal here.

  69. Who is the least cancel-able, most virtuous leftist you know of

    me

  70. Would public transit be necessary if we all could Super Wavedash

    god, now I've gotta go watch some Best of ESAM videos

  71. The key to ending capitalism is the working class working together to build something outside of capitalism. A policy proposed by capitalist politicians is not the key to ending capitalism. UBI is good (well, it CAN be good) but it has nothing to do with building socialism. Something can be good without being revolutionary.

    in response to I think universal basic income is the key to ending capitalism. Once that happens, everything else will logically follow.

    I think it can be peripherally helpful to building socialism in that it normalizes the idea that your right to live is unrelated to your ability to generate wealth for others. And it can put people in a better position to engage with radical politics since they're no longer struggling to survive. Like, those are the reasons politicians resist it.

    But, generally, yeah, it's not some kind of sea change policy. It doesn't do much that a dozen other liberal capitalist policies would do, which is mostly "make things moderately better" and "affect the discourse." Neither is exactly revolutionary praxis.

  72. Have you read Film Crit Hulk?

    some

  73. That's...not really the same thing. You're a public figure. A popular leftist with a fairly substantial following. Like it or not, the views you put forth carry a certain amount of weight with your audience. So when you, for example, say we should abolish capitalism (which I remind you is the economic system utilized by most of the industrialized world) without putting forth any ideas of what we should replace it with, people are going to listen, and more than a few will take those remarks at face value in a way you might not intend.

    in response to You regularly advocates for our current economic system to be abolished while openly admitting you don't know what you'd replace it with which, whether you realize it or not, invites the assumption that you don't think it matters. How is it dishonest to point that out?

    Forgive me, but I can't tell if you're accusing me of wanting to abolish capitalism without a replacement, or if you simply worry that that a hypothetical "someone" could think that by misunderstanding me.

    Because, earlier in this thread, it was an accusation.

  74. What's wrong with Joss Whedon?

    do you mean "what did Joss do?" or do you mean "why is Joss the way he is?"

  75. I think universal basic income is the key to ending capitalism. Once that happens, everything else will logically follow.

    I think UBI is very important, but I don't think any one thing is the key to ending capitalism.

Anon commented:
Ian replied: