Say what you want about marxist-leninists but they're not "very extreme right fascists". Do you have any evidence for your claim or are you just doing your part in decreasing political literacy?
Equality is everyone being treated the same way regardless of differences.
Generally, equality is just about equality of freedom or "power to –". If someone needs support to achieve their goals (as long as this doesn't involve "power over" others / oppression) then of course it is important that there be societal structures/networks in place to help them, or at least "meta-structures" that can facilitate the organisation of such supporting networks.
Of course, "freedom" is a poorly defined word in itself, but imo the "everyone treated the exact same" (or worse, "everyone should be the same") interpretations are not in the spirit of "freedom" and I wouldn't be surprised if they were constructed in bad faith (not to promote "equity" but to discredit "equality").
But ultimately it's just semantics, and if you like calling it equity that's cool, it's just good to keep in mind that people who still use "equality" can easily be referring to the exact same thing.
Thanks for the info.
My concern is less about the reliability of the provided info and more the bias of the voice/language being used, and the choice of which facts get reported on. To me, this Politico article reads as rather sympathetic to the right wing.
Ultimately I don't think "unbiased" reporting truly exists, it'd be better if journalists (and their editors/employers) were transparent about conflicts of interest, like in scientific publications (even though it's not like that's likely to happen, so the reality is that anyone seeking such info has to find it out by themself). Not to mention how the left-right spectrum is pretty subjective and vague.
Does anyone have an alternative source?Politico Europe is owned by Axel Springer SE, and Axel Springer was apparently like Germany's Murdoch.
Not my photo and I don't entirely remember its context but I'd saved it back then because it really struck me how blatant the Bernie censorship was
As far as I can tell, they physically present as masculine (albeit non-traditionally), perhaps with elements of femininity (I mean when it comes to specifics that kinda stuff is subjective), rather than butch/masculine femininity or smthn.
I just checked their reddit acc (u/anarcho-stripperism) and they still have their preferred pronouns as they/she/them, and seeing that they're anarchist, perhaps they are going for a more subversive breaking-the-gender-binary thing (which I think is cool!) rather than something specifically about gender identity.
Do you know why? I'm curious because she presents as masculine and doesn't seem to have any hangups presenting as such so it leaves me a bit confused. Like, with gender being a social contruct and all, gender neutral pronouns for all is my personal ideal, but yeah I don't get why someone would choose pronouns associated with the gender they don't actually "traditionally" present as. Is it about being intentionally subversive?
Only if the amount of wug is a prime number.
This is because non-prime numers of wuggi are highly unstable and will split into separate prime factors of wug if there's enough space (and in most atmospheric conditions).
You could share this sublemmy's pinned post, or the megathread it links to:
Ik it's only anecdotal, but I played Brawl Stars when it was in beta and witnessed almost all its updates until global launch (and have caught up with some more recent updates here and there). It went from a genuinely fun mobile game with character and potential to a plastic husk primed for whatever monetisation and "engagement" strategies analytics says needs to be shoved into it next.
At the time I couldn't fathom how all those updates that often made gameplay and progression less fun could ever be more "engaging" (the change from portrait to landscape in particular felt like straight up poor game design, trashing its unique mobile control schemes in favour of digital twin joysticks and "autoaim"), but in hindsight it's clear what that really meant.
Oh I don't doubt that those in power are complicit in the exploitation (I disagree with calling it feudalism, however). Ridding themselves of responsibility by blaming colonialism sounds akin to Israel deflecting criticism by claiming anti-semitism.
The statist perspective is unable to properly address these inequalities and injustices because it cannot reject the hierarchical power structures that caused them in the first place. Foreign intervention is just colonialism 2.0, but the more "reactive" alternative is just leading to a situation where measuring immigrants by their worth as 'skilled workers' and 'ease of integration' is pragmatic. I'm not gonna deny that there's a kind of sense to this, because that's exactly what makes it so worrying. At least with the old racist pseudoscience we can point and laugh at how nonsensical it was.
Ah, fuck, I usually at the very least skim things before I share but this time I just assumed from the title... my bad, the article has nothing to do with this topic.
Still, my general point is that European colonialism in Africa can't be considered a "solved" issue, because of capitalism's (and 'western' capitalists') roles in continuing to exploit its natural resources and perpetuating systemic wealth inequalities. I think that profling populations by nation/culture is a fundamentally flawed way of approaching the difficulties of (mass) immigration, plus it's an even more dangerous road to go down. Whatever the qualities of cultures and hegemonies that persist in whichever regions, populations aren't homogenous, and states fail to represent their peoples.
Of course, there are many factors and actors involved in the many social instabillties / conflicts plaguing the world, and anything I might value as an anarchist (e.g. open borders and mutual / humanitarian aid) would be nonsensical to apply as government policies. I don't have a 'counter' solution to propose.
lf all this is "thought terminating" in the sense that I'm unwlling to go down the path of 'pragmatism' in which peoples' worth is profiled and measured and weighed, then so be it. As I see it, that kind of thinking as part of problem, not the solution.
Look, I'm always down for learning more about history, but who's "Nigeria"? To who was "Nigeria" selling slaves to? Modern states are never representative of specific / homogeneous cultures, let alone individual peoples, let alone societies from before the state was even formed. After skimming a few wiki articles, it's clear that the region has had its own fair share of struggles against authorities, slavery, and racism, even before European colonisation, some of which continue currently.
Still, none of this reached the scale of european colonisation / "the scramble for Africa", and the continued political and economic influence and control that 'the West' continues to hold and wield (neocolonialism / recolonisation). I know nowhere near enough about critical theory, but I'm sure these processes can be understood as a form of deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation (I wasn't able to find a freely available copy, but this article seems like it could be a relevant, interesting read: Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization of the Orisha Religion in Africa and the New World (Nigeria, Cuba and the United States).)
Regarding Syria, "my approach" would be simply to support more movements / projects like Rojava (which is clearly not something that 'western' political powers are interested in doing). As an anarchist I don't think liberation from state authority can be achieved through state authority.
So... are we gonna pretend that colonialism played no part, and continues to play no part (via capitalism), in today's "material conditions"?
How many racisms does one have to do before they can be considered "far right" enough to be called a nazi?
Recognising mass-immigrantion as non-ideal can be valid if coming from a place of compassion. But with this perspective, mass-immigration is seen as a symptom of wider socioeconomic problems (or non-societal factors such as natural disasters), not as a problem in itself that needs to be "fixed" by sending immigrants "back home".
Furthermore, seeing immigration as a cause for socioeconomic problems only comes from a place of racism, ascribing negative expectations to people according to their country of origin / culture / ethnicity. It is clear that you stand with this camp from how you phrased what you think "the left" thinks:
"Immigration is good from any country in the world and if you have any reservations what so ever you're racist".
It implies that a person's country of origin plays a factor in whether or not they can be considered a "good" immigrant. That's racist.