It’s true. But I am sick to my stomach listening to conservatives taking the high road and feeling sorry for him. Why don’t people want to destroy their enemies suddenly? It’s like they loved him the whole time and all their death threats were just in good partisan fun. I don’t want the left to end up in such a humiliating position that we can’t wish harm and pain on this man. Not because it is salvation but because dignity is at stake and I want revenge for his life of crimes of I can’t get justice.

It’s not hard in the slightest. It’s embarrassing to have to read this insanity. There is no amount of suffering this man should be shielded from and humanity gains nothing by lamenting his torment.

Stop making a fool of yourself. He should be dead. He should have been dead decades ago.

For a long time when I worked in restaurants and the boss would start blasting us with “faster!!!” we just all go “working hard, working hard” with no added enthusiasm or energy.

It has too much function to take it as a dismissive reply… unless it’s obvious.

For work I use it all the time to confirm I got an email. I can see how it may ruffle feathers, but my other colleagues don’t even confirm they got the message. Using the thumbs up also helps me organize what I need to do because half it is just in emails I gave a thumbs up to.

If I just replied 👍 to this post, I can see how that would be bullshit but that’s not how Im using it.

Its kinda like saying “sir” or “ma’am.” Some people are too good for it imo and some people may have good reasons to feel uneasy about it, but to me it is respectful to use it as long as you aren’t clearly a shit head.

It’s impossible to take people seriously that do what you are describing.

People who say “I know from history” oftentimes have the historical knowledge of a gamer.

You dont have a point other than people bad. It’s the most insipid, unthinking comment you could possibly make.

Good luck with 7th grade

It can’t be a proletarian ideology if it reproduces the behaviors of bourgeois ideology: that of being inaccessible in language, requiring years and years of studies to even start to grasp, requiring the reading of earlier philosophers in an academic manner (pouring over every word), and attaching itself not to the substance – despite what patsocs say they do – but to the form.

Lmao having a vocabulary is bourgeoisie. You seem to have a an anti-intellectual view of academia. Tell me, do you think the world is understandable to a proletarian because the world carries with it an affectation of simplicity that can work with the proletarian character, or because proletarians simple must engage with the world?

Also it’s just wrong to say academics pour over every word. Do you think people can read hundreds of books that way and get anywhere? Please return your caricature of academics to wherever you found it.

I am extremely jade about this. A lot of action that is taken can be reduced down to anxiety relief and identy expression. Anarchists and many leftist types fetishize action but imo it just increases the amount of masterbatory, self serving actions that are more about profile building than anything else.

There is the trope that western leftists don’t do anything. Haha… Well it’s actually a lot worse than that I’m afraid. It’s also that the actions that are taken are also undignified. It’s not just a lack of organization or action that holds us back.

The problem was that people were taking the variation that was not specifically for humans.

Yes capitalist social relations are absolutely a cancer.

What we really need is a stakeholder cancer that is more sustainable /s

Tbh tech is an unknown language to me so everything you are saying could be true so now I need to look up different OSs

This is why I have a Huawei. Which is funny because all the iPhone users around me think China is absorbing my soul through my phone. (I don’t actually know that having a Huawei helps)

Yeah its been this way for so long. There are other theaters that this occurs as well, such as sex trade conversations. There are many people that have a lot of liberal baggage that they accept as their intuition. I routinely hear coworkers drag libertarians into the dirt as absolute morons only to hear then say “you just gotta pay for your porn bro” 10 min later.

The whole thing makes me reflect on myself and what the hell im doing with my life. Like how the hell did I get here from where I was??? Its part of why I took a long break from online discourse but I cant escape it in my day to day life now regardless of if im online or not and people are just not receptive. Im always trying to refine my rhetoric but imo there are greater forces at play than my abilities to communicate or my understanding of the world.

Where did this “revolutionary” come from?

Revolutionary class consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the proletariat that not every working class has. If a working class has no consciousness and no revolutionary potential, then it is not a proper proletariat even if it performs wage labor.

Not trying to put word in your mouth. Im trying to communicate how we differ in our analysis of class, especially in the US.

Your criticisms dont answer my question on why it is ubiquitous that such a class must exist among colonizers. IMO it is a fundamental question to understanding class in Amerika.

While I disagree with some excerpts of the book, such as when Sakai affirms there is no “white proletariat” in the US (sometimes he even affirms there is no proletariat at all), I still think that everyone should read it.

This is what detractors say but it is never substantiated as a criticism. By what natural law of capital is it so ubiquitous that a revolutionary proletarian class must exist among colonizers? This criticism usually amounts to disappointment or frustration that the processes of class formation in Amerika differ from that of Western Europe. Settlers is not a description of the moral quality of white people but rather the material process of class formation in settler colonial Amerika and its consequences for labor organizations and for colonized peoples. I read the book and I have yet to see any successful criticism of the book among its mkst common criticisms, I have, frankly, only seen strawmen and white fragility.

It essentializes white people as irreparably racist, and it conveys a defeatist message altogether, implying there’s nothing to be done to fight it, and that white people cannot be allies.

Looks like someone forgot to read the book.

I think those who defend this work to be of utmost value to the US radical left should address those critiques.

Those critiques have to exist first. All the links you provided are exactly the people spreading strawman representations of the book. They don’t engage with it at all. They just make up an argument based on what they think the book is about or they read it they way a Christian reads the Quran.

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/223720

I made this post hoping to have a similar conversation. There is a video of a professor giving his take on marx’s views on religion.

I personally dont see how you can utilize Christianity without exposing yourself to a number of problems (for example the anti socialist and anti indigenaity trends in Bolivia are held together with Christianity). I also feel as if it is unproductive to incorporate religion into power structures at all because the goal should be liberation from religion and not reliance on it. If your movement relies on religious institutions and religious cosmology— especially Christianity, then I would say the movement is in danger. Even if it is manipulated by the state.

Ultimately I try to not be dogmatic on this issue and usually I defer to the revolutionaries of their respective areas and cultures.