Mr Fish

the bourgeois are not the enemy - it’s the hyper capitalists

Yes, the bourgeois. Bourgeois means business owners or people who own capital.

Not sure exactly what you’re meaning by “middle class”, but I’m guessing it’s white collar workers (people who’s job is telling other people what to do) and/or “petite bourgeois” (aka small business owners like small tradie businesses or mum and pop shops).

At least in some countries, weddings legally have to be an open invitation. The idea is anyone who has an objection needs to be able to bring it.

I’d honestly rather not sell that sort of thing. The only reason I would is so I could spend my working hours making that and still be able to afford to eat. If that wasn’t an issue, I’d rather give my work away for free.

Panama makes some sense, because of the loch system. Each ship that passes takes a lot of their drinking water, and they don’t need to bomb ships to stop them passing.

A disappointingly common sight from ml

if we want to

The problem is that some of the people who have this hobby don’t want to

Thatcher standing right next to him

Books, sure. The books are dense as all fuck, and I get that a lot of people aren’t interested in things like the ancestry of a tree.

Movies, though, are way more efficient with the storytelling. Especially the theatrical version, despite how much is missed out compared to the extended.

Well feces ideally isn’t a fluid

2012 being 5 years ago was more than 5 years ago

Can you tell me precisely what Ukraine did to provoke Russia into invading, other than just historically being part of the Russian empire?

nazi invasion in 1941

Not commenting on '39-40?

everyone wanted them to collapse

This changes what exactly? Even if everyone wanted it to collapse for purely imperialistic reasons, that doesn’t actually say anything about the government being good or bad.

Don’t expect funny from jankforlife. The best you can get is “America bad therefore soviets good”

advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers

I am advocating for using your vote to reduce human cost as much as possible. What that means depends on the context.

If you’re in America, the decision right now is between one genocide, two genocides, or refusing to have an impact on that decision with how impossible the system is for third parties. One less genocide is the least bad option, unless you have a better one.

If you’re in New Zealand (where I live, so I’m more familiar with the politics here than anywhere else), there are multiple options because of MMP voting. That means I won’t be advocating for voting in genocidal right wingers.

citation needed

Labour coalitions have historically been the governments that have had the best impact on workers rights. At least far more than national coalitions.

Also, don’t think I’m saying you should vote for labour next year. Labour is shit, vote for someone better

“Very cheap” in terms of time, effort, money, and opportunity cost for each individual involved

OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read “electoralism” as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change.

But if the definition of “electoralism” is using voting in addition to direct action, I don’t think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It’s a good statement, but it needs more backing it up

Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that “voting convinces people that they’ve done all they need to” idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can’t fundamentally change things.

Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that’s something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I’d love to be proven wrong here.

Nowhere in that does it really explain why voting is counter productive. Voting is a tool, and a very cheap one. It only costs at most an hour once every 3 years and requiring knowledge of current events and politics, which is stuff you will know about anyway if you’re involved in any kind of direct action.

The only potential argument there is the psychological one, where people are lead to think voting is enough to do their part, but I don’t think that’s a strong enough argument to pass up choosing your opposition. As shit as Labour is, National and Act are worse, and by any logic other than accellerationism (which is a terrible idea of you care about the human cost), Labour will make fighting capitalism that little bit easier.

I understand not running for office. That article gives good reasons that actually joining politics is a wasted effort. It takes a lot of time and money, and almost always ends up making people slide towards the “reasonable politician”, not the radical that they promised to be.

I assume it would be the opposite. Use full slices so you can get them out of the oil with a sieve.

Pet hair, glitter, and nerf darts. You will never finish getting rid of them