sweetpotato

To think that there’s only one issue with the neoliberal democrats is so sad…truly. Don’t mistake focusing on Palestine with that being the only issue. Maybe if they didn’t like the wall so much or had any progressive economic policies or environmental ones, we’d talk about it. They are serving the oligarchs with a few social progressive policies, that’s too little, sorry

All of that just to see the “lesser” evil shift consistently to the right every election cycle. There has to be a red line at some point, a point where there’s no significant ideological difference, but no

No choice would help them and thinking the dems didn’t give Israel everything it wanted is the problem. But that’s what people who don’t really care would say, cause if you cared this entire year, you’d realize this and would’ve noticed the endless pleas for embargo.

Peak White people in the west* humanity

All lives matter type shit. We live in a patriarchy, the least you can do is listen to those most affected, women. Don’t expect compassion if you can’t show it.

Exactly how I am sure poor white people have it bad in this system(and it needs to be addressed), yet those primarily affected by racism have to come to the spotlight, exactly this way men have problems(and need to be addressed), yet those primarily affected by the patriarchy have to come to the spotlight, women.

Conflating one social problem (patriarchy) with others (economic inequality and poverty for example) is harming the cause and it’s disorienting, it’s wrong. When we talk about the patriarchy, the discussion should not be diverted and those mostly affected are women, so we talk about women’s problems and how they experience it. That goes for queer people’s problems as well. It goes for any underprivileged/minority social group. That’s it.

Ukrainian genocide? Where is this even coming from?

Regardless, your comment reveals the answer to your dilemma. If the question is how many genocides/oppressions you are willing to put up with, then it’s a system worth abolishing. If one party commits 4 genocides and the other 5, then would you choose the one committing 4? There is necessarily a point where both parties are doing so badly, they’re indistinguishable and they are both crossing the red lines, that applies for everyone of us, no exceptions. So the question then remains, where do you draw the line for this?

Another example I usually give for this is: one party being Hitler and the other being Hitler but he is giving a little bit more money to the healthcare system. Would you vote for Hitler? No, so you have to draw the line somewhere. We draw it at a genocide(and at numerous more issues which are for another discussion)

I know you’d wish that, but unfortunately genocide is too much for me and the least evil argument doesn’t hold up anymore. There are red lines and dnc has absolutely crossed them. I’m not expecting you to understand, you clearly don’t care enough about the genocide.

I wouldn’t know since I am not a republican. I’m just absolutely not ok with the Palestinian genocide, but you care so little that you only seen republicans, regardless if the critique comes from the right or from the left. You’d wish you could make me look like a republican.

Rather unfortunate for you that the folks complaining about dnc being 100% complicit and funding the genocide, have never ever claimed that Trump is the better choice.

Also I love the genocide in quotes, really says all you need to know

Pretty unfortunate for you that there’s free speech then huh? Not letting you spew your dnc propaganda undisturbed

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

“brought unprecedented war to Gaza”???

Last time I checked, that’s Israel’s business. Yk turning Gaza into an open air prison, oppressing, stealing the land of the Palestinians, murdering them and torturing them, ethnically cleansing them…?

As much as you’d love to tarnish Palestinians liberation struggle, facts don’t really allow that. You’re just another genocide apologist

These mfs will use literally anything except for open source, decentralised social meda

What in the world do you mean “you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?”. What does expect mean??? I don’t expect anything, I’m stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable…have you heard about climate change or…? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don’t need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.

I never said it’s a US problem, and I didn’t make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It’s a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it’s a worldwide problem.

You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That’s a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people’s needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it’s a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don’t get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I’ve said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.

It’s almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it’s basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.

So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don’t know about.

Yes it’s obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody’s arguing that. What I’m talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.

No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It’s not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that’s just one of the problems. It’s the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).

It’s also that Google could have been taxed more(I’m sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn’t replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that…cool