I know! It was so carefully hidden then he turns and bam! Surprise rat tail.

I think there might be some mystical powers in the bleached mullet ends of his band mate as well.

Yeah, that’s why it’s just my dream home. But if I could design and furnish a home that is what it would look like

Me too. My dream home would be inspired by Forbidden Planet

I think you’re misunderstanding my point.

Feminism isn’t about being an asshole vs a nice person. It’s about equality and it extends beyond gender.

Why are women treated differently? Why aren’t they given the same respect as everyone else? Why should anyone be denied an equal place in society based on things like race, class, gender etc.?

My only point about assholes is that an individual who is truly opposed to equality, is simply an asshole. Even assholes opposed to equality are still entitled to the same rights as anyone else, but the consequences of being an asshole (people not respecting or associating with you because you acted like a disrespectful asshole) are not violations of your rights.

Yes, bc I support equality. That’s it. That’s all it means. I try to treat others the way I would want to be treated. I try not to be an asshole to others. I know sometimes I fail, but I don’t go out of my way to do it. If somebody tells me I did something incorrect or hurtful, I don’t get offended, I just try to do better in the future if I see them again.

I didn’t know that supporting feminism was just supporting equality until I was an adult bc nobody ever taught me that. It’s not really surprising to me that some people attach other meanings to the word (both positive and negative), or that some people are opposed to it because of whatever negative things they may have attached to it.

It is still very surprising to me that there are people who will openly admit they’re just strongly opposed to equality. From my perspective, if you’re opposed to equality, that means you’re opposed to treating others as you would want them to treat you. You’re intentionally being an asshole, and you kinda forfeit any expectations of respect from other people. I still believe you’re entitled to the same rights as anyone else, but getting called out for being an asshole is not a violation of your rights. Equality means it’s ok to be an asshole to another asshole. That is feminism to me.

Removed by mod

But all armies=bad and propaganda, no?

😂 so anyway, who is the aggressor?

With Love, Libshit

Yeah idk, who do you believe is the aggressor in that situation?

😂

🤔 Interesting. China Military Calls for Efforts to Repair Image after Scandals

Got any hot takes about this army?

I thought about asking how would state controlled media be able to publish anything about an image if it’s banned. Then I figured that’s pretty obvious, and didn’t want to ruffle any feathers. Should have known better than to try and go against the narrative. My bad.

👌

I feel like the Taiwanese air force wouldn’t bother with these unofficial patches if there weren’t at least some truth to it.

A punch in the face for Xi caricature: Taiwan air force badge goes viral

Taiwanese are rushing to buy patches being worn by their air force pilots that depict a Formosan black bear punching Winnie the Pooh - representing China’s President Xi Jinping - as a defiant symbol of the island’s resistance to Chinese war games.

Yeah let’s pretend the green party/Jill Stein doesn’t intentionally promote propaganda or accept GOP bribes to split tickets. Or the fact that the European Greens recognized what Stein/the U.S. Green Party has turned into and literally begged her to drop out for the sake of democracy

And let’s also pretend the democratic socialists party didn’t recognize the PSL is also astroturfy and propaganda fueled as fuck…

They do have a right to be on the ballot even if it was just to intentionally split the vote in favor of the GOP and global oligarchs that provide their campaigns with financial support. So let’s also pretend that the Democrats calling that shit out and using their establishment bank account to sue them, is the same as redrawing district lines and voter suppression tactics.

Who is the individual or government that actually passes your purity test? PSL and the American Green party?

History has shown Dems to be playing the role of wolf in sheeps clothings for over a century

These are called politicians. They are humans like anyone else and they should never be placed on a pedestal or treated like they’re above criticism for being on your team.

The both sides are the same argument denies the reality that voting in your best interest and gaining incremental progress for society is a better alternative than sitting by while the world burns around you.

Saving your support for an infallible leader who checks all your boxes, gains power and rescues society while somehow appeasing the majority and yet never compromising or screwing up something important, is a fantasy at best.

And to realize that none of the parties are here for you is a scary thought, and many people want to desperatley push it away for the safe and comfortable thought that you have a champion to fight for you and you’re not alone.

A government is composed of people. People are flawed. If you’re looking to flawed people to create your ideal society rather than strategizing how to do the best you can with what you have in front of you/working towards an improved future, you’re going to be spinning your wheels for all eternity waiting to be rescued.

Out of curiosity though, what is your ideal government/who is your ideal leader, worthy of your support? Who can you point to as an example of “that person/government that got it all right, and if we could just have a government or politicians more like them, everything would work itself out.”

Edit: Surely somebody must come to mind? Bc if not this whole post kinda seems like a lot of bullshit

I wasn’t being condescending, just recommending a book about the history behind the modern Republican party. Tracing the history behind how a modern Christian right movement was created should be more than enough evidence about why the two parties being equivalent is false.

idiosyncrasies of republican ideological superstructure.

That’s the entire point of recommending the book, and the term “prefigurative traditionalism” is taken directly from the book I recommended, not my attempt to “sound smart.”

The history that led us here should be pretty convincing evidence as to why the argument both sides are equivalent or working together is false. Only one side has ever promoted voter suppression and roll backs of protections for rights, and equality, and a desire to return to “traditional values.” The U.S. history behind all of this and the creation of a moral majority, which at its core is a desire to protect and enforce white male supremacy, can be traced back to the individuals that created the Heritage Foundation.

It’s fair to say the strategy the Dems have used (trying to appease moderates out of fear of losing them to the right) is a bad one bc they don’t seem to understand what they’re actually working against, and it also plays into the false narrative of the right as somehow being a victim to a “cultural war.”

My point about victimhood being shared by fascists globally, is that there seems to be more evidence of far right leaders using the same strategies and working together globally against democracy vs there being any evidence that the modern two party system is a result of Dems working with Republicans or both sides being equivalent.

But thanks so much for explaining to me what I’m awckshully noticing.

Apologies for the facts and documented history you don’t want to hear 🤷‍♀️

I know Project 2025 hasn’t been brought up nonstop over the last year or anything, but if you can somehow imagine a publicly available document laying all this shit out point by point, it might help you understand where I’m coming from.

I recommend this book bc you seem to be misunderstanding or ignoring the history that led us to this point.

The Radical Mind: The Origins of Right-Wing Catholic and Protestant Coalition Building

The radical aims of the New Christian Right have been obscured by the way they cultivated a shared identity of victimhood and manipulated the discourse about backlash to create a nostalgic idea of the past that they then leveraged to justify their right-wing policy goals. The Catholic-Protestant alliance constructed an imagined past that they projected into the future as their ideal vision of society. Ebin calls this strategy “prefigurative traditionalism”—a paradoxical prefiguring of a manufactured past. Using this tactic, the New Christian Right coalition disguised the radicality of its politics by framing their aims as reactionary and defensive rather than proactive and offensive.

Funny how the same prefigurative traditionalism and claims about victimhood/attacks on traditional values can be seen in far right leaders across the globe, but nobody ever seems to point out the similarities.