1. Apparently we can’t disagree if your comments are anything to go by, regardless of how much reading we do
2. Calling your highly touted T h e o r y a science is laughable. It’s descriptive philosophy and as such has no predictive/prescriptive value

There’s a reason you have to call it theory and why that theory gets bent like a pretzel whenever something runs counter to it. It must be correct because at its core it’s theology for the disillusioned. The material conditions weren’t right bro, trust me bro, just one more vanguard party bro, we’re gonna be stateless I promise, just need a little more critical support for these fascists bro…

If you poll on actual policy and don’t couch it in ideology or partisan framing, the vast majority of people agree. From basic economic policy to abortion access to housing regulations to climate action, ~70% or more are in agreement. And keep in mind this is with a constant media barrage promoting division.

In a better system we wouldn’t be bound to just D and R. It would be something to more accurately represent the nuances of the voter (probably an evolution of the coalition systems in newer Democracies). You end up those popular policies as the core of governance with the outer fringe policies on the political curve getting less sway. Compromise is a part of any system of governance except maybe despotism.

But the Constitution did set the country up for states to be like their own nations

Yes and when the Constitution was written they were basically 13 semi-sovereign states who were such nascent politicians that they couldn’t imagine a government without a king (just renamed president). The constitution should have been entirely reworked after the Civil War and probably needed more major revisions as the population, topography and demographics of the nation changed.

The state of our federal administration is fucked because the constitution is fundamentally flawed. If it was written for a modern world, the federal government would have the foundation to weather this assault and possibly the teeth to nip the rot in the bud. At the very least it wouldn’t be so rigid that people like you feel the need to cling to a centuries old piece of paper as infallible.

Using a maliciously broken system as self evidence for its abandonment and prohibition is absurd. There’s nothing inherently more oppressive or evil about a federal government than a smaller state government. If you’re not considering a restructure to address the root flaws then you’re just whinging over which boot you’d prefer to kick in your door.

Sounds like a good idea until you have a soup of 50 sovereign states who still don’t agree but are now completely wide open to international power plays and local violence. The people only have “different visions” because the rich are best served by having us divided. Caving to that pressure only makes us more vulnerable to their neo-feudal ambitions.

It’s absolutely possible to have a strong federal government without getting into the shit show we have today. The problem is when federal authority gets distilled into a handful of people and detached from popular representation or recall.

“Getting the feds to back off” has been the laughable fig leaf that the right has used to dismantle the normal operation of our government for 200+ years. Now you’re buying into balkanization when they’ve enacted their coup?

We don’t need more limits on the only structure that can mitigate/navigate climate collapse; the only thread that historically has opposed the oppression of the deep south; the only speedbump that could even moderately oppose the hegemony of the ultra wealthy.

The US constitution was designed to entrench the power of the white landowner class, and that has remained true in spite of the consistent creep of federal authority. It’s just not possible to mount any opposition to the massive weight of their capital in any other way.

So no, don’t restrict the Fed’s authority to do any of that. Just give us the tools to get real, fair representation and hold our representatives accountable. Every other needed reform and restructuring could be done with no problem once we have that.

Got a mirror? I assume that was the close shot and not the far video (tho even in the far video you can see it pretty clearly). From the positioning and the amount of blood and how fast he dropped my money is it hit a carotid artery and he’s almost certainly dead.

Edit: for everyone still wondering, save yourself a nsfl watch of the front row video, he’s dead for sure

[Apologies in advance for the essay]

I think your description is utopian because it distills civilization (and by extension the universe) into a stable system in an ideal balance. Any society has to exist within its material constraints and those limits invariably devolve and shift through entropy.

Socialism (and basically all early-modern political theory) was born in a time of incredible scientific advancement. It has an implicit axiom that all factors can be solved and accounted for, and by doing so we can asymptomatically approach a perfect society.

But we know a lot more now and can prove that’s just not possible. Our physical reality imposes instability on society whether we like it or not. An unstoppable, aggressive blight could destroy the agricultural output of an entire continent. Suddenly it’s just not possible to give to each according to their need and only the most insular and asocial pockets of civilization survive.

There’s no amount of creativity or human goodwill that can weather the unfathomable forces beyond our control. I mean, what happens to our carefully crafted socialist society when the earth’s magnetic poles flip. Or when the moon finally drifts away from the earth and permanently ends our seasonal stability. Or when the sun explodes or we deplete Earth’s finite resources or etc…

I don’t say all of this to be unreasonably pessimistic or nihilistic, but to point out that these ideological theories are fundamentally unsound. Our current world does desperately need these socialist policies, but dogmatic adherence to them as indelible rules is counter productive.

In my opinion we should focus on instilling basic guiding principles and solve our problems in any way that satisfies as many as possible. Some off the top of my head, in a rough ordering:

• Maximize political engagement and representation
• Minimize our ecological footprint and don’t develop an over reliance on any resource
• Preserve and extend our scientific knowledge
• Delegate labor and distribute resources as equitably as possible
• Limit restrictions on personal freedom

You’ll almost never be able to satisfy every principle, but establishing something like that as a baseline allows for good faith discussion and decision-making without the need to villify your opposition.

Weird way to “listen” by suppressing their voices. Zero Covid was the “right call” in a narrow lens of limiting direct disease transmission, but it was completely untenable as a true long term strategy and had no foresight.

The protests weren’t due to solely to the restrictions on personal freedom, it was also the total lack of sane administration and fallback plans. The enforcement, quarantine logistics and vaccine rollout were entirely scattershot. The government had no realistic approach to the problem beyond rigid policing.

When their authority to enforce the policy was stretched to its limits they did an about face and pretended the problem didn’t exist, leaving their vulnerable populations in the lurch with no offramp. The core problem of inept administration was completely unaddressed. I wouldn’t give them credit for “listening to the protesters” any more than I would give Tsar Nicholas credit for listening to his striking workers.

COVID lockdowns when minor protests broke out

“Solve” is an interesting verb for suppression of legitimate mass discontent at being physically locked into their apartments. That “solution” worked so well for those “minor protests” that they decided to do a 180° turn from the Zero Covid policy to no restrictions overnight.

Truly a bastion of free speech, except for any real discontent is labeled capitalist subterfuge so we’ll just disregard that.

I have! Have you been on it in China? Have you contrasted the foreign feed to a citizen’s? Have you seen the coordinated response to genuine spreading political discontent vs mundane petty scandals? Because it kinda sounds like you haven’t if you think that’s a killer response.

Never claimed to be any kind of China expert but it’s absurd to claim “much more open discourse” if you’ve spent any appreciable amount of time in the countries being discussed. You can literally just walk + talk in public and see the difference.

Like all these asserted freedoms it just magically happens better and free’er but you definitely can’t verify it because “media”. The open political discourse I see and hear in major EU/US cities pales in comparison to the uh… hidden… open discourse in T1/T2 Chinese cities? Definitely heard some first/second hand political discourse but it was never, ever, ever a public forum.

By all means, give me evidence to the contrary. Maybe I just keep catching China with a bad case of the Mondays. Have you been? Can you point to any discourse on domestic politics? Where is the asserted diversity of opinion on hotbed issues? Can you show me any strong opposition to the party line on a public stage?

Crazy how you can literally just look this stuff up and find out what’s true instead of discarding arguments.

Independent trade unions are illegal in China. The single, state sanctioned trade union is widely criticized by international trade union orgs for not faithfully representing its workers. By most accounts it exists to funnel labor disputes through a bureaucratic meat grinder of mediation to maintain the status quo. With the exception of a handful of actions for international leverage, all strikes are wildcat.

If you’re actually interested in labor relations in China I’d recommend this article for starters. It’s older but the situation hasn’t improved under recent leadership.

Complete list of banned books in the US

Lmao what? Do you know what “banning” a book means? It’s just not on offer in schools or a library for that specific state. It’s completely normal to just buy it for yourself and there are even organizations dedicated to distributing banned books.

It’s hilarious to try and dunk on America with this of all things. Media restricted/censored in China is entirely unavailable. It’s actually very interesting how the censorship manifests in daily life, but I imagine any .ml reader will discard those anecdotes (or any verifiable reports) and try to redirect back to the West somehow.

I’ll take “things foreigners say when they’ve never been to China” for 500 Alex

Dudes probably just at a private golf outing or a child sex trafficking party or out hunting endangered animals to extinction

There’s a lot of comments about how digital devices are viable/helpful for note-taking and just as good as a pen. I think that’s missing the crucial point: virtually every device we own today is designed as a distraction machine.

A pen + paper isn’t going have any notifications or reminders or updates or emails or texts or ads or alarms or alerts. If there’s any device without those that’s as reliable and as cheap as a notebook, I’ve never heard of it.

If you can’t fill in: “don’t support X or Y but ___” then why make a comment tearing down any particular candidate? You’re clearly not interested in what’s possible in our current, real-life political environment.

If you’re positive it’s impossible to get anyone decent elected then go set something on fire or some shit. I’m not judging any radical position but we’re talking about ballot boxes here.

What are you on about? There is no progressive wing. The center doesn’t need the left to get anything done, as evidenced by the last 50+ years. All they need is the permission of the right.

Again, you’re complaining that there’s no space for your platform but that has nothing to do with centrists secretly favoring the right. In the USA (and most 21st century democracies, to some extent) we have a rigged spectrum with only Center, Center-Right and Hard Right.

If you want to play the political game as it stands then you’re submitting yourself to the Center. It’s not back stabbing, you just have no political weight to merit anything but lip service. Gaining the clout to influence policy isn’t going to come from the good will of the Centrists, it has to be built independently.

It’s arguably an insurmountable task but it starts by making policy that appeals to voters across the current spectrum. That means a hard focus on economic solutions for the wage-earning class. Look at the success of Bernie, AOC and Mamdani, their focus is generally-to-exclusively economic. Once you build that Center-Left you sap some life from the right and can build from there.

Of course, all of this is going against coordinated establishment attacks. You can see those headliners getting it from all media outlets, but as long as they stay on message they have success. Attacking them for not being progressive enough is silly when they’re actively pushing the limits of what the system allows. That is the essence of the “purity test”.

Uh… Why would they? Progressive policies are on the far end of the left spectrum by definition. If they had the political weight to carry the party then they would no longer be progressive.

What you’re actually complaining about is the window of modern politics being dragged so far to the right, which is due to external factors and separate from any party loyalty concerns.