False? We employed that strategy, i.e. voted for Democrats multiple times over decades without demanding that they do better, and now we have fascism. That’s not to say that the strategy caused fascism, but self-evidently didn’t stop it.
The crux of the issue is that we voted for Democrats “for the time being” multiple times over the past 50 years, and this is still what fucking happened. But, ignoring that, the big idea here to save our hides is that a Democrat has to win every single election from now until the sun goes super-nova? That seems more than a little unrealistic.
The optimal strategy remains to vote for neoliberals when the alternative is fascists because that is how to create time for socialists and progressives to primary neoliberals in the Democratic Party and win general elections.
With all due respect, that strategy got us fascism. The terminology has changed, but I could tell close to 30 years ago that this would be the result. Is three decades not enough time for socialists and progressives to “primary” neoliberals? Apparently not, because socialsts/progressives/leftists are lazy, good-for-nothings who are simultaneously powerful enough to swing elections, but too inconsequential to talk about their issues or court their votes.
In other words, maybe these vaunted “centrists”/liberals should’ve stepped up to stop fascism. (And, it’s not leftists who say that Harris “went too woke” and now want to throw trans people under the bus.)
I’ll go further: It wouldn’t be enough to simply reform one political party, anyway. The U.S. Constitution is a dead document, and its system of government is obsolete. The black hats have discovered the exploits, and everybody now knows how to game the system. We can’t repair the system from inside the system, since it at the bottom line it runs on trust, and that trust in the system is gone. Just like in any relationship, it takes some material change to get people to trust again.
Lots of Christians believe that, come the end times, they will be bodily taken up into heaven. (That’s the reason for embalming, to preserve the body for judgement day.) Since, of course, they’ll take their trucks with 'em, they don’t use the bed now. It’d suck so much to spend eternity with scratched paint.
I have to, take issue with this, one. The rules of commas are, pretty, easy actually: Use a, comma where you’d, pause when speaking. If, you read it out, loud and sound like Captain, Kirk then you put, a comma in the, wrong spot.
Indeed. Simplified, skin is kind of like a building: collagen fibers (rebar), bricks (cells), and mortar (sebum). All of them are necessary.
Hot showers strip away the sebum, letting the skin’s moisture escape, but also leaving it vulnerable to bacteria and fungus. The latter is why the armpits and feet pump out substances which feed smelly bacteria— to ward off infections. Post-shower oils, as recommended in the article, are good, but even better is not stripping the natural oils in the first place. If moisture escapes, then you have to exfoliate to remove the skin cells which died, and follow up with “moisturizing” lotion with urea to break down the collagen strands.
The whole skincare regimen is a scam to get you to buy more, expensive products. All you need is lukewarm water, and a spritz of mild soap for pits and crotch. Amazingly, once you establish a healthy skin microbiome, your feet and pits don’t stink, and you no longer reek after 3 days of camping without a shower.
Goddammit, THIS is why I said that supporting the genocide in Palestine was a line I couldn’t cross to vote for Biden. Always stand with the oppressed, and never, ever, ever throw anybody under the bus, no matter how politically expedient. Evil is a cancer which will metastisize around the world, and now where’s our moral clarity? Instead of a simple, powerful “ethnic cleansing is bad” to move people, it’s, “ethnic cleansing is bad here, but okay there because reasons.”
The reason it was okay there was “brown people,” and now the regime is going after also brown people, too.
“Carbrain” is a real mental disorder, though. How else do you describe somebody who looks through a windshield and sees a long line of idling cars into the distance, and thinks, “clearly the problem here is bicycles.”
(e: improved punchline)
By what percent? And, why would even want to take a car into lower Manhattan?
Of course, I drive (I kind of have to because of the way our landscape is designed to mandate it), so I have to include myself in this. It’s well-established by psychological research that drivers have very little empathy for other drivers, but especially little empathy for bicyclists and pedestrians, viewing them as less-than-human annoyances. Add in that driving in a city requires that one subject other people to the noise, the pollution, the danger, and the arrogation of space by one’s vehicle, and you pretty much have to suppress any empathy for the people who live there, otherwise it’d be unbearable to do. That lack of empathy is textbook sociopathy, induced by the activity of driving. It just happens to be widely normalized, but we still see posts even here on Lemmy from new drivers who are struggling to suppress those thoughts.
What does it say on his birth certificate?
Putting the shoe on and loudly announcing that it fits?
The $9 congestion toll is nothing compared to the cost of parking in Manhattan. Gothamist, and other media outlets, did the legwork on this: The congestion toll applies to approximately zero poor people; they’re not driving into the city. But tens of thousands of lower-income people benefit from improved bus service, subway upgrades, and less danger.
I feel like this objection makes the most sense in a particular context, like a culture that views beef as some sort of prize, or a marker of being ahead in the competition for social status with one’s neighbors. (U.S. culture very much views it that way.)
If Person A eats only 1 unit of beef per month, what would make dropping to zero “unfair” is if we assume that they are too poor to afford more (“losing”), or engaging in asceticism, but holding on to that one unit as a vital connection to the status game, or a special treat that they covet.
But what if it’s just food? Person A may just not be that into beef, and probably not even miss it, just like Person B probably also wouldn’t notice a difference between 100 units and 99 units. In the sense that neither A or B really would notice a small change all that much, it’s fair
Anyway, random thoughts from somebody who thinks steak is just kind of meh.
Taxing the wealthy in their expensive, personal conveyances to fund the MTA that the poor people ride is regressive? Is this one of those situations like with the word literally, where “regressive” now means the opposite?
I think it’s a spoof on the Western movie action sequence in which the hero leaps from the coach onto the backs of the horses, in order to rein them in.
Getting trapped in a building with a mass shooter is something very, very unlikely. On the other hand, I face the danger of death by automobile at least twice a day, on my ride to work, and my ride home. More, if I go other places. It may seem not that bad because it’s so normalized. Dying in or under the wheels of a car is something that happens to people every single day, and it barely rates a mention in the local news. Sometimes the victim doesn’t get even get a name. By contrast, the stochastic nature of mass shootings makes them scary, like plane crashes or terrorist attacks, the natural order of things is upended. Death is death, though, and I wouldn’t be less dead if it were a texting driver rather than a gunman.
And the texting driver is a whole hell a of a lot more likely. So, yes, it’s entirely logical that I’m afraid of that. Not being able to understand and denying that fear is exactly the kind of car-induced sociopathy that I’m talking about.
Throwing insults is not a discussion, by the way.
You’re surprised that something that’s not good enough is… not good enough?
The wheel of the metaphor-of-thing-as-wheel exists and is widely understood, but apparently needed to be reinvented as a metaphor involving a roughly rollable shape?
Challenge failed.