That’s what I’m saying. Let the Zuck cook.

You can but you won’t win unless you can prove anything, so good luck with that.

Well to be fair, and I do not personally believe this is the right thing, no one said democracy needed to be inclusive. In fact for most of history democracy has been the opposite. So it checks out.

The situation you describe is different and actually proves my point because Mr. Dahmer, presumably lives in a nation, and in that nation in which he lives there must be some form of state or organization that is imposing that law. Even if he disagrees they can impose the law on him through some form of force. He can run, he can fight, but the organization is bigger and thus more powerful than him and as such can make him follow the law or force him to face the consequences. See also why billionaires may be above the law in some places: they are individually richer and more powerful than the organization that would hold them accountable.

On the international level, if a group of nations declare that invading other countries is a crime but 1 of them disagrees and starts an invasion, the crime can only be punished by force, ie war. You could impose penalties on them too, which is a type of force or power, but look at Russia to see how effective they are.

It’s meaningless unless everyone is in on it, willing to be held to it and willing to go to war to enforce whatever ethical standards have been agreed. It’s pure theater.

And I didn’t know that it was a choice between international law and meddling in the lives of individuals.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Here’s the thing, even when we had order international law was a joke. The only reason laws work within a country is because the state can hold you accountable through violence if necessary. For a country or group of countries to be able to enforce their laws on other countries is through war. If you are not willing to go to war, you should not be engaging in this theater.,

International law is such a fucking joke. Why do they even bother with this performative bs? Stop wasting money on this nonsense.

A Reddit comment on a trans community on my feed. That’s all I remember man, didn’t think about it twice to be honest.

Apparently a bug that has happened before.

I don’t think so, I mean two things can be true at the same time but to me it sounds to his negotiating tactics. It’s frankly disgusting that he use this as a bargaining chip to do this but it seems like it might motivate Jordan/Egypt to lend humanitarian aid to rebuild Gaza to keep them out instead of the US covering all of it. Of course it should be Israel paying but that’s a long shot.

Yeah because they feared the masses were too stupid to participate in democracy. More than once they describe how a popular mob would end up electing a man exactly like Trump. I would say these elections have vindicated them, although there’s no reason why it wouldn’t have worked with more participation, that’s what the electoral college is for. But the problem is that the electoral college is not working the way it’s supposed to: they are not supposed to vote for whom the people want, they are supposed to deliberate between them and elect the best candidate.

FDR kind of fucked it up, and from then on every subsequent president added to the enshitification of the office by expanding its powers. But yes it is inherently an oligarchy, but I do not think that is inherently a bad thing. The intentions were good.

Presidents are supposed to have full power over the executive branch. The problem is that the executive branch now and when the constitution were written ware very different beasts, as the states had much much more autonomy before FDR.

2025 is right in that it’s existence and the ability of the current president to implement it tell us that we have erred in the amount of power we place in the president(s). Constitutionally he has the full power to do what he is doing, or at least he mostly does, the problem is that the constitution was written centuries before FDR expanded the power of the executive in a major and possibly anti constitutional way (as many of his contemporaries suggested).

The Founding Fathers left us a great system, impervious to tyranny and the sort of populism that Trump represents, and we ruined it.

How is this even a thing? Is a bank run considered collusion? If the platform no longer offers the audience I want to reach then I should be able to stop advertising on it. It just happens that the audience of may companies at once left the company. Who is even entertaining this lawsuit?

You’re right in that I said something wrong. There will be a revolution, but one that will only happen when human labor has no value. Until them, communism is not possible and it will simply become oligarchy with rampant poverty and technological stagnation while massive government inefficiency and corruption are rampant. There is very little wealth inequality if everyone except dear leader and his generals are rich, everyone else is equally poor. There might be huge wealth disparities in the US right now but the average homeless person has a higher quality of life than almost every other country in the world, this is only possible because capitalism has allowed for the quality of life of everyone to improve as it generates wealth.

The Chinese are the only ones that actually “get it” I think, or so it would seem, even if they are still somewhat adhering to tankie tendencies.

I really don’t think it makes any sense to consider tech billionaires automating labor as “real Marxists” but those studying Marxism and building Socialism as “fake.”

And yet they and their employees are the only ones capable of creating the conditions for communism to be real and viable. I will reinstate my point and urge you to meditate on it: Communism will not be viable until human labor has no value.