I wonder if they also condemn the American Revolution, since they didn't just peacefully protest and also accepted military aid from the French.

I can't get these people to answer shit, though, any time they get stuck they just downvote, block, and move on.

But a growing faction of the right is drunk on power, using its current dominance to wage a culture war against its own citizens as retribution for the last number of years. “Owning the libs” is their preferred method of revenge. Instead of tackling inflation or healthcare, they are targeting millions like me who want nothing more than to live our lives freely and equally.

She says, immediately after doing exactly that. The key words are "like me," she's perfectly fine with waging a culture war against people just trying to live their lives as long as she's not in the outgroup.

I wonder if Ernst Röhm would have written a version of this if he'd survived.

It's becoming more and more clear that all these conflicting announcements are to allow Trump and his cronies to profit off insider trading. Kind of insane how blatant it is, short the market, announce tariffs, sell the short, pause the tariffs (except for China), buy tech stock, announce tech will be exempt, they gotta be making crazy bank.

The thing to understand about Christianity is that it was originally a reaction against the Roman empire and then got co-opted and integrated into it. As a result, ever since like the 4th century Christianity has been about basically the opposite of what Jesus talked about. It turns out all that stuff about turning the other cheek stops being relevant if the emperor has his soldiers paint crosses on their shields while they're out conquering and enslaving the Gauls. Of course, you can keep all the mythological stuff, who cares, but anything relevant to politics or the material world mysteriously seemed to reverse once they entered the halls of power.

The carrot of being accepted into the empire was matched with the stick that if you didn't go along with the imperial-approved form of Christianity you'd be burned at the stake as a heretic. Any sects still clinging to anti-imperial sentiment get hunted down and exterminated just like when they were being fed to lions, but it's the Christians doing it to each other now, so you don't even have to get your own hands dirty. This approach worked way better at suppressing dissent than just trying to ban Christianity altogether.

Of course, a lot has changed over the centuries. And originally it wasn't perfect or anything either. But imo, it was when Rome Christianized that Christianity Romanized, and ever since its real values have had more to do with Rome than with Jesus. The meme's, "moneyless, classless, stateless" ideal of heaven is a relic of the original teachings that gets shunted off to the purely mythological side, where it not only doesn't matter, but also occupies a place in their brain that could have otherwise been sympathetic to making good things happen in the material world. That's already resolved, there's no need to worry about it, there'll be pie in sky when you die.

But on the plus side, the fact that LGB haven’t been removed makes me feel slightly hopeful? This is a clear step back obviously. But it makes me feel that finally the idea that gay, lesbian, bisexual people exist and don’t need conversion therapy has actually sunk in and we can’t be erased so easily.

No, that's completely wrong. They're coming after trans people because trans people are the easiest target right now. They also intend to get rid of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but it's easier to focus on one group at a time and attempt to split people apart.

They did the same shit in the UK with the "LGB Alliance," mostly straight TERFs collaborating with the Heritage Foundation and doing absolutely nothing to advance the rights of the people they claimed to be supporting, focusing entirely on attacking trans people to the point of making alliances with extreme reactionaries and anti-feminists.

Anyone using the "LGB" acronym is either a reactionary using divide and conquer tactics aiming at attacking all LGBT rights, or a useful idiot to said reactionaries. There is no plus side here.

This website completely changed the way I thought about this stuff and I found it super helpful.

The line to walk, generally speaking, is, "When you do [specific behavior], it makes me feel [specific emotion]." So for example, "When you ask me if everything's ok, it makes me feel pressured/put on the spot."

Keeping it about your own feelings makes it less confrontational while still bringing attention to the problem - you don't wanna get drawn into a whole debate about whether there's anything wrong with asking if someone's ok, but you want him to understand how you feel and (hopefully) take that into account in the future. If he does get defensive, repeat the message once to make it clear you're standing your ground, but then drop it and move on. A lot of times it's just a matter of the other person not realizing how it affects you.

Having said that, speaking as someone who's very much had the same mentality in the past, there are a lot of advantages to having friends in the workplace. Something to understand about this approach is that it's actually good for building relationships because it allows you to confront the behaviors that bother you while openly communicating your feelings, and people may even respect you more for standing up for yourself. Just remember to walk a middle ground, you don't want to veer into aggression or passivity.

This is such a condescending form of analysis that totally misses the mark. It's basically just, "Trump was bad, but some people still like him. Why? Must be because they're just too dumb to remember things." There's no actual evidence that people have forgotten any of the stuff they mention, it's purely just that.

To attribute the issue to memory would imply that there was widespread agreement while he was in office that he was bad, which has faded over time. But Trump's approval rating for most of his time in office hovered around 40%, similar to Biden's. So what's actually happening is not that people were on the same page about Trump being bad when the events of his presidency were fresh in their minds, but rather, that his supporters never agreed with/cared about the things the article is saying in the first place. Framing it around memory is nonsense.

Antinatalism is reactionary and incorrect.

raspy voice

The gaslighting will continue until morale improves.

Noncredibledefense is from Reddit and has a very particular set of bizarre brainworms that generally boil down to bootlicking NATO. As far as communities federated with .ml, it's the worst by far. Be glad they banned you, block it and pretend it doesn't exist, everyone on there is way too deep into whatever it is they're into to ever listen to reason and there is no value in understanding them.