IDK, if it were Iraq levels of stupidity, the Democrats would become completely on board. This is a rare break with imperialism, because, also, Democrats usually would be on board with any support of fascism in Latin America (e.g. Pinochet, Operation Condor, etc.). We are finding extremely rare exceptions to right-wing stupidity that the Democrats wont agree and sign-off on.

Edit: And here I was constantly pointing out that the Democrats completely gave up any pretense of being an opposition party. Maybe they have finally found some difference between post 2024 Democrats and Trump in terms of policy.

Völker, hört die Signale!
Auf, zum letzten Geficht!
Die Internationale
Erkämpft das Menschenrecht!

Grok is still woke!!!

I don’t have a list of specific instances on hand. But he was kind of a contrarian voice for a while that I listened to over a decade ago, but in 2016 went in the more anti-woke (anti-CRT in terms of the time) and very reactionary culture war turn.

“Despite claims to the contrary”, to grossly simplify Wittgenstein, a word’s meaning is how it is actually used.

And critically, not just since Trump. As soon as the ink dried on the Nazi surrender, the US and OSS/CIA armed and funded every fascist they could find since fascists are the most dedicated anti-communists.

Again, despite claims to the contrary, tankie for most people means “anything left of the Democrats, or willingness to break with US foreign policy.”

If I were criticizing various nations more than the U.S., I wouldn’t shame people for “authoritarian bootlicking”. Glass houses and all that.

There wouldn’t be any outrage outside of 100s of the wealthy donors. Liberals would completely be more outraged because of norms and civility. The entire point of “drain the swamp” was that most people hate oligarchs, the point of Republicans is to redirect this off into racist and unproductive channels, where nothing ever comes of this hate for corporate and wealthy overlords.

These god-damn violent tankies. Vietnam should have just fined her a much smaller amount than the corrupt practices made them, like how the West handles corrupt oligarchs.

Purged the Anarchists? No you are the lying disingenuous person here. If we were talking about the Russian Civil War, you might have something approaching a point.

Edit: proving the point, hatred over “tankies” is just that you don’t want your own positions or viewpoints challenged or questioned

yes they are, Tankie has become so abused and meaningless as now only means anything to the left of Dick Cheney or not going along with US foreign policy.

Spanish Civil War, where the Soviet Union was the only foreign power to give large amounts of aid to the Republicans and France and Britain sat out, and US oil and other business interests backed Franco. Where there were divisions over tactics and priorities but where communists fought with the Republicans, and it is largely after the defeat and popularizers like Orwell that a stabbed in the back myths about communists came to prominence. Yes, the liberals were not a complete monolith, so there were some liberals with the Republicans.

Also, in an underdeveloped, still mostly feudal society, liberalism can still be a progressive force.

I am being short and glib since I was just responding to an epically dumb post. but if you want to know how fascism is a necessary outgrowth of liberalism and the need to protect and serve capitalism leads liberalism towards fascism in crisis.

https://www.amazon.com/Apprentices-Sorcerer-Tradition-Critical-Sciences/dp/1608462021

Damn, 55% of Brits are tankies

Unless you are a diehard right-winger, Liberals will always be more likely to betray you than anyone on the left. The causality is backwards here, liberals will always side with fascists over the left, thus they are identified as moderate-fascists. Just like how the Democrats want nothing more than to just be polite Republicans.

The Winnie the Pooh stuff is just completely made up by Western propaganda. Also, how hard is “yellow face is racist”, when saying an Asian looks like a cartoon with yellow skin?

Free speechers on .world can’t handle interacting with any dissenting opinions to the left of the Bush Administration.

No, it was the cold war. The First World was US/West Aligned, the Second World aligned with the Soviet Union/Communism, and the Third World trying to sit out and not take sides.

No, there are really tangential analogies about how self-interested behavior can have negative consequences, but it is and has always been based around a bunch of numerous myths. Externalities is a better description of this.

Elinor Ostrom investigated management of the commons and the original description of tragedy of the commons was a complete lie. The commons were enclosed so that in this transitional stage of feudal lords could become businessmen that could profit off of using the land rather than taxing a peasant community living off of it. The enclosed commons is an asset to generate profit, where if enough of an increase in profit could be achieved, that could be reinvested, meant that exhausting the land would be an economically rational strategy. Where, if a peasant community is using it to sustain themselves, they have to carefully manage and steward that land so it is still producing for themselves years later, their children, and their grandchildren. The complete opposite of what the “tragedy of the commons” describes.

Who could have seen this coming? Who could have foreseen that all of Web3 was a ponzi scheme that would say anything to get people to pretend hashes on a blockchain is worth 100s of 1000s of dollars. Who? WHO?