This thread has made me realize that while I was watching the hearings on it purely for comedy aspect, there were actually people out there being like, “Yeah that makes sense.”

Love it when the government takes away our stuff. Please, take away more of our stuff. Love me that security theater.

If you don’t like the app, just don’t use it. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with data security and everything to do with other social media companies lobbying to eliminate a competitor, using anti-China sentiment and fear-mongering as a justification. It’s all about the money.

I’m gonna have to admit to stealing that line from Dimension 20

I only brought up Jim Crow in response to the claim that the the state will protect people and that there are ways to appeal the state of it doesn’t. The point being that having legal protections on paper is not always enough to keep people safe.

The “fascist enablers” don’t have consciences you can appeal to, because what drives them is money, and they are specifically selected for their willingness to serve capital and cause harm to innocent people. The system selects for sociopaths.

You analysis takes absolutely zero account of the systems or material conditions that exist which compel people to act in certain ways. Germany had an unemployment rate of 30% in 1932, but in your mind, it seems like the communists were only fighting because they wanted to and the capitalists were just reacting to that.

Had everyone on the left coordinated on mass nonviolent actions, like mass strikes for example, the capitalists would still have turned to the fascists in order to preserve their money and power. Violence or nonviolence doesn’t matter, what matters is whether their positions are threatened. You either never do anything to gain power in hopes of being able to beg your enemies for mercy, or you do whatever it takes to win so you don’t have to rely on that. The in between stuff where you pull your punches and try to disrupt things without defending yourself is the surest way to get yourself killed.

Because he’s rich and powerful and laws are just threats made by the ruling class, which he’s a part of. The law is primarily a tool of class warfare and as such is only enforced consistently and in full force against the working class. Very occasionally, one rich person pisses off enough other rich people to be subject to it, but you have to be extremely bad at the game for that to happen. The more rich people are subjected to the law, the easier it is to be subjected to the law yourself if you’re rich, so generally you’re better off looking the other way while they do illegal shit so that you can get away with your own illegal shit. Plus they have the resources to fight you, so it means picking a costly battle.

Yeah, and those same mechanisms existed in the Jim Crow South but that didn’t stop the Klan from lynching people and getting away with it.

Maybe if we just don’t fight the Nazis, they won’t be able to justify violence against us 🤡

Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities because if we don’t they might stage an attack and the “atmosphere of violence” we’ve created by trying to keep people safe will allow them to blame it on us and seize power. The solution is to just allow them to seize power directly through force, without resistance.

This is nonsense. Nazis don’t need a justification to use force against you, they can literally just lie and make shit up, like they did with the Reichstag Fire. It doesn’t matter if it’s true because it’s directed at the weakest and most vulnerable and stigmatized populations, who have the least capacity to fight back and the fewest platforms to counter their narratives, and once they’re done with them they work their way up. They will create terror on the streets and then use the fact that the streets are full of terror to seize power. People are going to try to defend themselves when attacked whether you think they should or not, so the only question is whether that resistance is strong enough to actually work.

I’ve seen too many examples throughout history of people trying to use nonviolence and do things the right way and just getting slaughtered because the other side simply does not care to be a pacifist. The world is clearly a better place because people employed violence in WWII to stop the Nazis. And street fighting in the 30’s was one of the ways that the Nazis secured their power in the first place.

Nonviolent methods are tools that are useful to have in your toolbox, and in many situations, they are more practical in achieving your ends. But there are cases were violence is more practical, even necessary, and one shouldn’t shy away from it when it’s needed. You gotta have your head in the game, the stakes are too high. A diversity of tactics is best.

The logic that violence is oppressive so it should be renounced in all cases in order to reduce oppression is idealist. You have to look at the actual evidence and material situation to evaluate what effects violence will have in a given situation.

Punching Nazis is cool and good. Just try not to get arrested for it because it’ll take you out of the action longer than it will them.

I can see how an RV, lab equipment, and a helper might help, but you don’t actually need any of those to do OF.

out of context

Everything’s always “out of context” with him, isn’t it? Because that’s his whole deal. He does controversial stuff to make people mad while hiding behind plausible deniability.

Whether it’s saying the n word on stream, or saying what he did about CP, or whatever other antics he’s gotten up to, it’s the same playbook of controversy-bait. Stir up shit, get people mad, get hate clicks, get clicks from people who hate the people who got mad, get clicks from people who don’t want to get left out of the loop about what’s going on, etc.

I only partially dislike him for the times he’s taken the controversy-bait too far and done something legitimately shitty. Mostly I dislike him because he’s controversy bait, and whether or not he plays the game well enough to make sure nothing sticks doesn’t really matter. It’s still just stirring the pot for attention.

The best thing to do with people like that is just to pay them no mind. It’s not like I’m missing some unique insight or valuable perspective. I wish I could to that with politicians like Trump who employ similar outrage bait tactics, but he is unfortunately relevant to world affairs.

Anyway, it is my longstanding policy to downvote any comment or post about Vaush, positive or negative, since I don’t think he’s worth paying attention to and doing so just drags down the level of discourse, so, true to my policy, I will now be downvoting my own comment since I talked about him.

You should’ve listened to your hesitancy, the less you know of him the better.

I think the phrase is, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The economy had been trending upwards under Obama, and it peaked under Trump. If you’re a Keynesian, you might gripe that Trump increased spending when the economy was doing well rather then saving for a rainy day. Then, the rainiest of all rainy days hit with the pandemic, which shot spending through the roof. That caused rapid inflation that became most noticeable after Biden came in. Most Americans either don’t pay enough attention or attribute cause and effect to more or less random factors, so the experience is, Trump economy good, Biden economy bad.

Second, skepticism of the government is a facet of American culture, fed into from the national mythos regarding the Revolutionary War, by anticommunist propaganda about how the government doing stuff makes things worse, and also from experience with getting disillusioned from politicians not delivering on promises and the government generally not acting in people’s best interests. Kamala comes across more as representing the political establishment, and her messaging doesn’t tap into that dissatisfaction or contrarian nature.

Third, people feel like they’re getting fucked, and Trump offers a clear, simple narrative of who is fucking them. And the narrative scapegoats people at the bottom of the social structure, who are least able to push back against said narratives, and who already have negative stereotypes about them. If you’re not going to do that, then you either have to tell people they’re not getting fucked, or you have to blame the people who are actually doing the fucking, who are at the top of the social structure, who are most able to push back against your narrative. Imo, in order to employ the latter strategy most successfully, you need a sense of solidarity, a sense that everyone is included in your movement and you won’t allow anyone to be scapegoated or sacrifice anyone for your own advancement -and it’s kind of hard to do that with the whole genocide thing going on.

My balloons comment was meant to demonstrate that your hypothetical bore no relation to reality. You can construct an entirely different scenario where such and such action is justified, but if it diverges too much from reality it’s meaningless. You are asking me to imagine a world where Mexico is more powerful than the US, before even getting into the conflict, that world diverges so much from ours that I’d have to completely reevaluate tons of stuff.

Russia has no intention of invading the whole of Europe. The question is whether US interventionist policy does more good or ill. And I have completely soured on it following the whole, “20 year long war of aggression that achieved nothing” thing. It’s not about “America first,” it’s about containing the damage that we do to the rest of the world.

One of them talked about a Marxist who will get rid of Israel within 2 years and wants to defund the police and give everyone healthcare and provide transgender operations to illegal immigrants, and the other talked about a person who hates the US military, admires China’s handling of COVID, and wants to defund the police and pull out of NATO, and I just wish I knew the names of either of those candidates because they’re both way better choices than what we’ve actually got.

I hate them.

Let me give you a scenario. What if balloons could sneeze? What then?!?

But you are clearly admiring Trump.

What on earth are you talking about? Fuck Trump.

You’re clearly a republican

Lol. If you like, I could cite some of Lenin’s work that’s relevant to the topic.

I’ll do you the same courtesy of simplifying it down to one point. Even if the war in Ukraine had all the justification in the world, we still can’t afford to fight it. The US is spread incredibly thin, trying to exert pressure all over the world all at once while things at home are completely falling apart. It doesn’t matter whether something is right or wrong if it is outside of our capabilities.

Aside from the fact that conditions are shit and that’s just bad inherently, the longer we go without addressing domestic issues, the stronger the far-right becomes, and that threat is much greater and more existential than any foreign power. The ruling class of the US has been stoking xenophobia to justify military spending, but there is a serious risk that it will spiral beyond their ability to control it. If the US goes full fascist, as we are very much trending towards, then other powers being able to challenge its hegemony will be the only thing holding it back.

I have no idea what the fuck you are going on about saying Ukraine isn’t much different to Russia??? Dude they were fucking invaded they don’t want to be part of Russia. They are a democracy - Russia is NOT, they are not similar at all. The Ukrainian people aren’t fighting and dying for nothing dude??? If Russia wasn’t that different they would have immediately surrendered rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this.

Ukraine is not a democracy. The current government came to power via coup and banned their major opposition party, which was most popular in eastern Ukraine. The people in eastern Ukraine didn’t like the direction the government was taking, and had been cut out of the political process, so they rose up and seized control of some regions from the government, which began a civil war. The separatists asked for Russian assistance, and Russia sent troops in.

They aren’t fighting because one country has more rights or freedoms or a higher quality of life, they are fighting for the interests of their state. The state’s interests are separate and distinct from the people’s interests. It would have been better if they had pursued peace rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this, even if it meant territorial concessions. Even if they won, it wouldn’t be worth it.

I’m a socialist. But if you’re somehow saying that STALIN is someone we should have left alone because Russia was communist, like dude have you been on the crack or something cos you appear to have lost your mind.

We did more that leave him alone, we joined an alliance and fought alongside him. But NATO’s fight against communism wasn’t just about countering Stalin. Democratically elected leaders all over the world, from Iran to Guatemala, were forcibly overthrown the moment they tried to do something to help the common people, and were replaced by fascists who hunted down and exterminated leftists of all stripes.

You’re literally promoting appeasement. Do you remember world war 2? The policy of appeasement worked wonderfully there didn’t it?

This is the second time you’ve made that comparison.

As I said before, this comparison has been used in every major conflict the US has been engaged in for the past 70 years, and we can look back at them and see how ridiculous the comparisons were and how unjustified the conflicts were. They said the Vietnamese were like the Nazis, that if we didn’t stop them there, they’d take over the world. How’d that play out?

You say that you don’t agree with those wars. Alright, but that’s very easy to do after the fact. When the US went into Iraq, many Americans were critical of Vietnam, and yet, the war had overwhelming support - just as Vietnam did, at the start. You’d get called a terrorist sympathizer if you opposed it. Then, after the fact, we can look back and see that it was no different, that it was just as unjustified. But it means nothing to say you’re “anti-war” if it only applies after the fact, when it’s too late to do anything about it, and if the moment our leaders roll out the propaganda machine and tell us “this time, it’s different,” you just go along with it. At the very least, you should be applying extreme skepticism to everything they say. These aren’t just the same types of people who lied us into wars in the Middle East, in many cases, it’s the exact same people in the exact same positions. I don’t trust them and would never follow them into a war under any circumstances.

Well countries may not want to trade with someone at least not on favourable terms if that country isolates itself in every other way.

I’m not sure reducing military interventions is going to make countries less inclined to trade with the US. They’re a part of what’s pushing more and more middle income countries over to China, when we invade and devastate independent counties, when we seize assets held in our banks, when we put up sanctions and blockades, other countries have to wonder if they’ll be next.

My point about NATO was that it’s all about working together to defeat something, so okay, in that case communism if you say so (honestly don’t know that much about it).

Well, I’m a communist, so “working together to defeat communism” isn’t exactly a point in favor in my book.

The point is that Russia and China are dangerous. I suppose you’re okay with the Ukraine stuff because it’s all about America right? Okay with the Palestinian genocide?

I have no idea how on Earth you’re making that logical leap with regards to Palestine. The US is actively funding and supplying Israel. That’s the sort of thing I’m saying I want to stop.

As for Ukraine, I just want peace. If that means giving up some territory, that’s fine with me. It’s not as if life is that different in Russia compared to Ukraine. If you really care about Ukrainians, get the killing to stop and then spend the money we’re blowing on bombs on actually improving their quality of life. If we’d done that before, maybe the people in eastern Ukraine wouldn’t have wanted to split off in the first place.

I’m fine with foreign aid, so long as it’s going to actually helping people and not to blowing people up to line some executive’s pockets.

But to just not form military alliances with other countries? That’s dangerous. Because Russia and China aren’t gonna stop with their alliance. If the US was to just ignore them two slowly taking over the world, then guess who will be the last country left, isolated as is your wish? The last country left to be taken over? Which will be much easier once they’ve conquered the rest of the world.

What indication is there exactly that they’re out to “conquer the world?” When was the last time China was engaged in a major military conflict? When was the last time the US wasn’t engaged in a major military conflict? Seems pretty clear which country is more intent on aggressive expansionism.

But that’s not really how empires fall, anyway. It’s the declining conditions in the core that you have to watch out for.

We also won’t be able to trade with the countries who have been bombed into oblivion by Russia/China/North Korea and whoever else joins them rather than die.

Pure fantasy.

You want America to be isolated? In a world where we have a Russia and a China? Are you for real dude?

Absolutely.

The US is losing the peace to China because we’ve wasted so much money on bombs and invasions, while China’s been pursuing domestic development. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our healthcare system is completely unworkable, our life expectancy is in decline, our education is being gutted, and wealth inequality has skyrocketed. Our country is falling apart at the core, this is no time to be fussing about shit on the other side of the world.

Only a few years ago, things were fine with Russia and China, and they could be fine again. The US pulled out of the Middle East and needed new conflicts to justify the military industrial complex, and so we got a bunch of sabre-rattling, proxy conflicts, and propaganda.

When the US finally pulled it’s finger out of its arse and stopped just benefiting financially from world war 2 and decided (more like was forced but whatever) to join in and fight Hitler, they were able to end it.

That was 70 years ago, and has been used as an excuse for every single major conflict since. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, all had major US political figures drawing comparisons to Hitler and WWII to justify them, and all were unjustified, pointless wars of aggression that slaughtered countless innocent people.

The UN and NATO originated off the back of that stuff.

NATO did not originate in response to the Nazis, it originated to counteract the Soviets. In fact, ex-Nazis were often brought on board, because they were reliably anti-communist. Adolf Heusinger, for example, served in the high command of the Wehrmacht and went on to become chairman of NATO.

You cannot be isolated in a 2024 globalised world. Absolutely bizarre take. I suppose you don’t want to trade with anyone else either right?

Trade is fine. Love trade. Although I am critical of the system of neocolonialism that keeps many countries poor, but that’s more a question of returning the natural resources that were stolen during colonialism and letting them regain control of their domestic policies. I wish we focused more on trade instead of war.