12
Chairman_Pooh 12 points ago +12 / -0

They've had censorship like this in China since forever, and all it has done is get everyone really good at speaking in code. You can't say "June 4th" so they all say "May 35th", etc.

8
Chairman_Pooh 8 points ago +8 / -0

In both these cases, the elites were on board, that is to say the actual elites vs the old system.

In France, it was the class of traders, bankers and businessmen that had established itself with the growth of capitalism and who had all the money vs. the waning feudal aristocracy that, despite their official privileges, was deeply indebted to the former and couldn't fund itself to (literally) save their lives.

In the nascent US, it was a very similar story, amplified by the fact that the King was an ocean away. The King had decided to start taxing their businesses and intervene in them running the colonial governments.They wouldn't have it and so they kicked the King out.

The French one was clearly worse. At least in the US, freedom is an ideal that all can share, and even if freedom was won by the rich purely for their own selfish ends, freedom was still won. What's going on currently resembles the French situation much more, complete with proto-communists running around for a while destroying everything tied to the old order before Napoleon (who was clearly on the side of what would now be Wall Street) just declared himself Emperor. "I'm in charge, now you all shut up."

What we're seeing here is the new elite overthrowing the old system, except the old system in this case is democracy. In the American Revolution, the rich were allied with the commoners against the foreigners. Now the alliance is the other way around, and old democracy will not work anymore. This is them saying: we're the ones who are really in charge and it's time we nakedly take power.

To win a revolution you need money and power on your side. The whole reason you even need one is because you don't. There's not going to be a revolution.

26
Chairman_Pooh 26 points ago +26 / -0

It's amazing how it can tell the difference between left-wing gatherings and right-wing or apolitical gatherings.

3
Chairman_Pooh 3 points ago +3 / -0

When I am weak, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles. When I am strong, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

3
Chairman_Pooh 3 points ago +4 / -1

I think it's elite gatekeeping.

If there's a set standard, people can be judged by it fairly. Furthermore, people can learn what the standard is and then work to meet it.

The old norm of wearing a suit and speaking like the news anchors made it possible for anyone to prove they're willing to play the game. You show up to a job interview in a suit and speak like the news anchors do. You can even practice. The result of that is that everyone who's willing to put some effort in can join in.

The left of course has norms too, but they're not codified, and they are ever-shifting. If you're not from the right family, you basically have to go to college to learn it by immersion, and then stay on top of it closely to make sure you get all the changes. You can't just put on a suit and practice your diction. That they borrow ghetto chic from the actual downtrodden and then claim this to be uplifting, I think it's rubbing it in.

2
Chairman_Pooh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Or maybe they all hated him because he was fucked up.

18
Chairman_Pooh 18 points ago +18 / -0

I live in the Netherlands and I had the radio on.

They went on and on about how 'a woman was shot', but never said who did it and implied it was the protesters.

Fuck the media.

11
Chairman_Pooh 11 points ago +11 / -0

Fucking Eritreans.

And it's even worse. Eritrea actually is a repressive dictatorship. These people who get to come and go freely must clearly be regime loyalists. Anyone actually fleeing political persecution would be put amidst the loyalists pretty much immediately on arrival!

1
Chairman_Pooh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Women are the primary victims of war. They lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.

9
Chairman_Pooh 9 points ago +9 / -0

That is unironically a thing, it's called a self-coup and it has happened a lot throughout history.

The usual goal is for someone who holds a constitutionally limited post (whether a president, or a constitutional monarch, or whatever) to get rid of those limits and rule by decree.

Not saying Trump wants to do this (in fact the Dems are much closer to it with their plans to pack the court), but it is a thing that's been done.

1
Chairman_Pooh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because you have to give them the information yourself, voluntarily.

The doctors aren't allowed to share your medical information with anyone but you (even then there are exceptions), but you can do anything with your own data that you want. You could have it put on a big billboard if you felt like it.

In any case, Ticketmaster is not a healthcare provider, so they can't be hit with a HIPAA lawsuit at all. It'd be the guy giving Ticketmaster your data who'd be in violation - unless of course you're doing it yourself, because you can do whatever you want.

4
Chairman_Pooh 4 points ago +4 / -0

The user accounts are shared though. I don't know if we're sharing the same server entirely, or just using theirs for logging in, but in any case, if they go down we go down.

10
Chairman_Pooh 10 points ago +10 / -0

Well, if BMG don't want to make money off of his music, then presumably somebody else will.

If BMG wants to run off their talent and replace them with diversity hires, hopefully they will see that in their own bank accounts.

9
Chairman_Pooh 9 points ago +9 / -0

By "our" he means "mine and my friends'", not "the people's".

12
Chairman_Pooh 12 points ago +12 / -0

Before the Islamic revolution the Iranian government paid $400 million to the US for weapons. Once the revolution occurred the weapons were never delivered. The $1.3 billion cash payment settled the outstanding debt with interest

The brass balls on the Iranians to even think to ask for this. Though it worked (and presumably, will again).

1
Chairman_Pooh 1 point ago +1 / -0

only President to win three terms

Four. He basically got himself set up as president for life. It was only after he died that the two-term limit was made an actual law rather than the gentleman's agreement it had been before, to prevent it from happening again. Look up the 22nd amendment.

7
Chairman_Pooh 7 points ago +7 / -0

Twitter put "Learn how voting by mail is safe and secure!" right under this tweet.

20
Chairman_Pooh 20 points ago +20 / -0

Here comes the memory hole. It's all so tiresome.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›