Even though we had a little bit of warning about federation, I think we're off to a rocky start. Maybe we should have compiled a list of things we think that may make other people very upset. That way they can quickly get to know what we're about and go hide in a social media bubble if it scares them.
I figure I'd start with a good one. America deserved 9/11. I'm burying the lede a bit with that one. I don't think random acts of violence really accomplish much and I don't think randos, albeit imperial core randos, should die. But this wasn't a random act of violence, was it?
There's a little something called Foucault's Boomerang. Basically it's the tools, means, and experiments carried out by imperial countries tend to make their way back home one way or another. Military gear gets tried out on the battlefield then next thing you know cops at home have the same equipment. It also works for cause and effect. America did 9/11 to itself.
After WWII America courted the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, who had some really "interesting" religious ideas at the time, to ensure a source of oil. Oil was very important to American manufacturing and the war effort. Our domestic reserves helped us get through WWII. We needed more. So the US decided to look the other way on Saudi foreign policy while they ensured us first dibs on the oil. The UK also made deals on building their infrastructure and finance needs, to which the US eventually pushed them of the back rooms where such deals were made. But that's another story.
The US also backed anti-Soviet/anti-Communist groups in the Middle-East as they had in other parts of the world. This meant giving aide and weapons and training to those groups. In exchange they would beat up all the communists and pro-soviet people in their country and keep the borders open for US trade.
Not to "yadda yadda yadda" through a lot of interesting history but the US made a lot of enemies and ruined former alliances in these places because we valued the exploitation of their resources more than the actual relationships formed. Once the Soviets were gone, we could just do what we wanted to them and there was nobody left to oppose us.
So our former (and some current) friends stabbed us in the back. The imperialism boomeranged back home and we got a terrorist attack on US soil.
The people who died didn't particularly deserve it but people die when an imperial power does imperialism. That's part of why it's bad. Imperialism will never benefit the common person, it will only hurt us in the end. You best believe all this funding, weapons, and shit going into Ukraine will come back on us too.
What are some other real-ass takes for our visitors who need disillusioning?
Sex Work is Work
Idk how truly controversial that is anymore though.
I've got hot takes about ageism that upset a lot of my age-peers and people older; I think kids and teens should be empowered and consulted more, and I think we need age maximums for things just as surely as we need age minimums. Sure, not every 95yo is incapable of driving, but also some 13yo kids are and we still don't let them have licenses. Fine, a 25yo shouldn't be President, but also maybe neither should anyone over 65.
Sex work stuff is controversial among communists because Marxist-Leninists have historically been for the abolition of the sex trade. That's all I have to say though cause I don't want an argument over this again.
I agree it's work, but I also assert that, under Capitalism at least, it's exploitative work that targets and injures the vulnerable and poor even more than the majority of other work. You cannot buy enthusiastic consent.
All work under capitalism is exploitative. But yes, it is kind of unique in that the clients are all pieces of shit. Your last sentence is the important part to me
As someone who’s done the less-problematic kind of sex work, and know people who do the more problematic kind, I truly don’t see how it’s more exploitative than working in a slaughterhouse or a coal mine.
Also a large part of the reason sex work targets the poor and vulnerable more than most other professions is because it’s criminalized.
That's the problem with always saying "sex work" since they clearly mean prostitution. Running an onlyfans or being a stripper are not half as dangerous (though the latter is more dangerous than average)
True, but that's also true of wage labor generally. I support the assertion that sex work is work partly for that reason: it's a good provocation for an argument against labor under capitalism being consensual.
Some of my old coworkers would insist, to my frustration, that me and my fellow grumblers and agitators had nothing to complain about because we could leave at any time. My manager was especially fond of that line. And it's like yeah, but I still need to eat and pay rent. I'm still forced to do something, against my inclination. If you can't choose to do nothing without life altering consequences, then you aren't free. (Edit: I should note that this wouldn't change under socialism, but the differences would include much fairer compensation and actual democratic representation, i.e. you'll actually get something for your work and you'll have a real stake in society) The exchange of money, and the need to earn it, always undermines consent.
Sex work is merely a more highly visible form of this kind of coercion, and I liked to use it as an example when explaining the above points to any of my coworkers who cared to listen. Being that we were warehouse workers, many of whom sustained minor injuries and risked major ones on a daily basis (and one of whom totally fucked up his back for life and was forced to quit), it was an easy point to make. We were selling our bodies as well. The difference, of course, is that our line of work is looked at as legitimate, whereas sex work often is not. Well clearly that's wrong. As I've just outlined, there's little difference between it and other forms of labor under capitalism. The view of sex work as illegitimate or less respectable or whatever is undoubtedly rooted in misogyny and patriarchy, but that'd be a whole post unto itself.
I trust any 16 year old to be president over any 95 year old
Here's my spicy take on this: To be a sitting president or senator, you must be between 30 and 70. If you're running at 66, you only get 4 years. If you're 69? Yeah, you'll get a few months. Might not be worth it.
Fun fact, that is how judgeships (?) work in Denmark. You're forcibly retired after a maximum of 6 months after you turn 70. It has led to the Supreme Court having quite a lot of rotation, since judges rarely get appointed prior to turning 62.
I’ve know too many people that were very sharp in their 50s and 60s, and then afterward their brains just sorta start falling apart. It actually motivates me to read theory or other challenging stuff, to keep the brain muscles working. I genuinely think a lot of what causes boomers brains to be like that is that generation was raised on passively absorbing TV and not reading or doing other stuff that’s better for your brain.
Nah 18-65. 65 is retirement age, should be the limit for elected or appointed office. Pilots are forced to retire at 65, and pilots are responsible for less lives than senators. And to be honest I think we should have some very very young people, like haven’t even graduated college yet young, because they have to live with these decisions longer and their perspectives are never seen in politics.
Cognitive testing
All debates should start and end with drawing a clock
~~Logan's Electoral Run~~
Logan's Run for Office
Who has that quote about how Mao would have been unilaterally loved as a hero if he had died at 50
That's why it's so easy to celebrate Lenin and Che.
"Ageism is good we're just doing it wrong"
I don't see how you can acknowledge the degradation of the brain and not the development
The politics ageism thing is mostly US-centric nonsense. The actual issue you have is that your political system is complete and utter shit. Fix that so people don't feel compelled to vote for literal mummies.