This is a very good and very dense piece, although complicated by its age and how history did and didn't go afterwards. I don't agree with it entirely, I think to make the point he's trying to make at the end of IV about power and violence he would need to have delved more into the nature of power outside of the context of governance. The point about revolutions is particularly apt though; any actual revolution is not going to take the form of armed citizens marching on capitol hill.
See that's one of the takes that bothers me. The 2016 political conflicts were vicious, not just heated and spirited and earnest but genuinely cruel and mean in ways that made me uncomfortable, and what I'm taking away from a lot of these Russian revelations, which I don't see anyone else talking about really, is that that seems like it was actually the intended effect of the interference. It wasn't about making people switch from Sanders to Clinton or from Clinton to Sanders, it was about encouraging people who supported either to view the other as so compromised that they were practically an embodiment of evil, instead of, well, a socially progressive neoliberal politician and a euro-style democratic socialist. For as much as the centrists are acting like the Russians now manipulated and altered the outcome of the entire election there seems to be almost as much ostrich-in-the-sand tunnel vision from folks on the left who maybe should possibly consider that some fraction of the enormous mass of internet communication from which we increasingly draw our cues about what stances to hold and how to hold them may have been manipulated to push us away from communication and towards self imposed division. No-one can or should try to claim that their political beliefs and their political expression emerge from within, wholly formed. We are social creatures who synthesize extremely complex social cues into behavior, and maybe in 2016 someone was fucking with us.
Sorry I don't actually mean to place the greater portion of responsibility on the "Sanders left", and I tried to phrase things in a way that suggested the issues of venomous division were pretty distributed.
The former but people care about what's close to them and USAmericans hold a majority in this thread presumably.
Its largely about socialism in a broad sense but also there's not a lot of places to talk about general left of center US politics. I mean if you've got stuff to say please do join us
My issue is less with anything you've posted here, which I largely agree with, and more with the sort of vibe I see floating around that's basically the old "well advertising doesn't effect what products I choose to purchase, it just doesn't work on me". That's, I think, what bothers me about bombsfall's attitude towards this, among others. Forget the Russian angle, if you like, should we be examining how susceptible we are to having our postures and our reactions manipulated period?
I stopped going there when they made the ableism guidelines. I think obviously we should care about ableism, but banning people for saying "stupid" is a really bad rule.
I'd modify that to say that people have an internally valid interest in protecting capitalism. That might or might not be material, but then again that's sort of my whole gimmick.
We're the worst. And should be spanked............. Uhh ohh, i just said that last bit out loud. :D
Ohh like that cunt that was the Milo defender that was in here at the beginning.
Humans are biased by nature, often biased in believing that what they are right. Also, we don't like to change, we like routine because that's the best way for our brain to consume less energy. This is true for our "morning routine" let alone for gigantic shifts in our society. Funnily enough, who protects capitalism is often the same people that use the "human nature" card without knowing that they are a prime example of that card.
There's a bunch of reasons to be piss off against capitalism and anti-communism too, but i dont see no one creating topics to attack capitalist posters and anti-communists, and to offend them and How they should be supressed and not accepted...
He's more revolution as a mean and end, than stalinist, It may give a Stalinist Idea because of the authoritarism, but wakanda is authoritarian on Its own.
I Guess you are right the revolution is the mean to Revenge
The film doesn't really put racism as the ultimate culprit. It's more that it is exploring the implications of a country like the super advanced, isolationist Wakanda existing in our world. Killmonger is rightfully pissed off that Wakanda stood by and did nothing during the atrocities that befell Africa such as the slave trade and Rwanda.
