I remember my high school having desks like these, and they had purchased A single left handed one and it was the only one in the school. Not very helpful if you didn’t have a class in the room where this only desk existed in the school
When I was in school it varied by classroom. Some classrooms were all desks like that (some with a larger writing surface, some with that useless one) some had the kind of desk you can store stuff inside (some with attached chair and some without), some just had tables and chairs. Oh and the chairs were a weird mix too. There was one variant that had a lower lumbar support that as a very boney and skinny person just pressed straight into a couple of vertibrae in my spine and was painful to sit in for more than 30 seconds
But without fail, any classroom that had these desks including a left handed desk or two would have it in the furthest back corner so it was always taken up by a right hander who would try to disappear in the back, not participate or take notes and would refuse to trade desks with you
I'm gonna rant for a second here if that's alright.
FUCK being mixed handed. I'm not right or left handed but I'm not ambidextrous either. I'm what's called cross dominant and it's a huge pain in the ass all the time.
Cross dominance is when you don't use one hand for everything but can't use both hands for everything. I write with my left hand but throw with my right. I eat with my left hand but punch with my right. That's not the main issue though. The main issue is I cannot use both my hands at the same time without them running into each other because they both have different instincts. If I were to try to use both hands to put something together I'm likely to end up yeeting whatever it is across the room because my hands got confused and one did the right thing while the other had a fuckin stroke and thought that the necessary thing to do is just fully extend and smack whatever I'm working on.
It's a small thing that I generally don't bring up because it's not that big of a deal and I've adapted to only using one hand at a time but it's still infuriating.
Rant over.
That's not "cross-dominant", you are simply a lefty who has adapted to living in a right-handed world, just like me. I can't use a computer mouse or fire a gun left-handed, but only because they rarely made these things for left-handed people when I was growing up, so Ive only ever used then with my right hand and struggle to switch sides.
That said, my aim with a mouse and a gun are awful because I'm not right-handed. I have a feeling that I would do a lot better with these devices if I was more accommodated in my childhood.
Okamiden was not made by Hideki Kamiya, and Kamiya himself considers Okamiden to be a spiritual successor, not a sequel.
So, to put it simply, Okamiden is not canon.
Pakistan Requested Nuclear Weapons Assistance From China in Talks Over Strategic Port
Pakistan Requested Nuclear Weapons Assistance From China in Talks Over Strategic Port
In bilateral talks this year, Pakistan asked China for a nuclear second-strike capability in exchange for the Gwadar Port—a demand that was rebuffed by ChinaMurtaza Hussain (Drop Site News)
Geneticists Solve the Mystery of Why Some Cats Are Orange—and Why They Tend to Be Males
Geneticists Solve the Mystery of Why Some Cats Are Orange—and Why They Tend to Be Males
Two new, preliminary papers identify a gene related to a cat’s coloration. The work also explains why tortoiseshell and calico cats tend to be femalesGayoung Lee (Smithsonian Magazine)
China's Chip Boom: How It Became the World's Largest Semiconductor Manufacturer
China's Chip Boom: How It Became the World's Largest Semiconductor Manufacturer
A Chinese telecommunications observer paints a stark picture for the U.S.Li Jingyi (China Academy)
China's Chip Boom: How It Became the World's Largest Semiconductor Manufacturer
China's Chip Boom: How It Became the World's Largest Semiconductor Manufacturer
A Chinese telecommunications observer paints a stark picture for the U.S.Li Jingyi (China Academy)
Each Generation is taking longer to achieve independence—for good reason
Each Generation is taking longer to achieve independence—for good reason
No one can resist complaining about the generations that came after them.Theo Renshaw (Data Takes)
How to Make Your First Loops Video
For those interested in trying out Loops, you may be wondering: what are good tools or processes for making videos?
We go into detail with some of the tools we're currently using.
Loops is a brand new Fediverse platform for short-form video. This guide covers some of the things we do with making Loops Videos.wedistribute.org/2024/12/make-…
Only if there are no checks and balances. The typical "communist" regimes like Russia and China can hardly be called communist by any definition. Just like nobody would call nazi's socialist, despite it being in their name (national socialism).
Fucking "I take all and ya'll better belive I'll redistribute favorably or fucking die" is hardly even left. I especially hate when people say "in theory it makes sense, but in reality...", no it fucking doesn't even in theory!
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
There can be no checks and balances on a state.
States only act in a way to preserve themselves. If that means by helping the working class - so be it. If it means oppressing the working class - that's ok too. As long as the structure and elites remain in place.
Which is why authoritarian state communism always degenerates into a kind of state capitalism where the owner class is the state instead of capitalists. In communism there is no owner class
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
I just feel like creating a class of people with absolute control that mustn't be questioned under threat of absolute annihilation is a spit in the face of the most core socialist let alone communist values.
They both have one body dictating what the people's needs are that mustn't under any circumstance be challenged. Making the whole "according to needs" part null and void. Both have histories of completely neglecting their citizens in favor of pursuing imperial ambitions.
Also not calling anybody capitalist. Saying it's not really communism isn't the same as saying it's capitalism. So considering your comment I feel the need to also express that my second paragraph is in no way saying other countries haven't done the same under other systems like capitalism. Just covering my ass, feeling the ugly head of pointless what aboutism approaching.
What you describe in your first paragraph isn't what Marxists advocate for nor is it what AES states look like. You can read historical texts like Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, or This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong if you want to dig deeper, but overall government officials are an extension of class and not a separate class, and officials absolutely are accountable with mechanisms like Recall Elections.
More than the prior texts, though, contextualization is important, and Blackshirts and Reds does a great job of that.
Yes... I was saying the theory doesn't match the situation on the ground. And the links you gave are all theory, which I at no point argued about.
The "separate class" I mentioned was also less of a theory reference, and more of a reality on the ground. Party members are treated differently. My grandpa was a party member back in the western block and had privileges regular folk didn't. Like traveling around the globe and importing foreign "imperialist" goods seemingly at will. My mom stood out with his gifts, like wearing jeans.
Also you say they have accountability with stuff like recall elections, but I'd like to invite you to provide an example of this actually happening. Like genuinely, I can't find any. All I find is officials being ousted by other officials, never by regular everyday people. As an example of completely dodging consequences, I'd mention that soviet countries and China both tried becoming leading grain exporters while their populations fucking starved, and people complaining were just labeled liars and thieves!
Which reminds me of a saying we used to have: "Kdo nekrade, okrádá rodinu" or "Who doesn't steal, is stealing from their family". A very different context from the one above, but it paints a pretty vivid picture, so I think it's still worth sharing.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
The first two books are theory with random anecdotes with the same citation count as my shit. If that constitutes history, than so does the Bible.
Tho I apologize for lumping then all together as the last book is actually somewhat more interesting (like actually having fucking citations). It rightfully outlines western propaganda, highlights what good happened in the USSR and what bad in the west. Tho if you actually read the thing, you'd notice IT'S JUST AS CIRTICAL OF THE SOVIET UNION! Read it your self! It mostly defends the USSR from western propaganda, but it doesn't do the same mistake you did and just deny the structural issues. Sadly it doesn't say much, as it is very much focused on critiquing the west (like the first 50%), so I kinda just dismissed it at first.
Also you completely skipped my request to provide a single example for your previous claim, sad.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
The first two books are historical texts describing real atructures and events, your insistence on the contrary is meaningless. It's pointless. Pat Sloan and Anna Lousie Strong are primary sources and you deny those, only trusting those who reference primary sources. It's silly.
Further, Blackshirts is Critical, but realistically critical like I am, and not unrealistically critical like you are.
And no, I am not providing you with anything you want if you prove to double down on a false understanding of theory and history. You have proven jusy how little talking to you makes any difference if you continue to misrepresent myself.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
That's not how science works. For anything to have value it needs peer review. In the case of history that means additional accounts by other people (ideally with different backgrounds) and ideally physical evidence like documents and other archeological finds. This is especially important in history, as every single piece of evidence is faulty due to distortion through bias. A single primary source all alone is literally worth shit. The last book provides multiple lengthy accounts from different primary sources and so at least meets the minimum requirement for not being immediately throw out.
Blackshirts also literally mentions some of the authoritarian issues I mentioned that you denied. The fact that in some cases it failed to properly adress the needs of the people due to abuse of power and how the structure it self accidently encouraged selfish self defeating behavior. I just added comments about party members basically being a separate class (because of the unrivaled abuse of power you refuse to dispute, while providing a book also mentioning it), while the book debunks western propaganda.
You can say I misunderstand communist theory, that's a valid criticism. But saying you refuse to engage because my understanding of history is false is dogmatic bullshit. Saying I'm unwilling to change my mind is rich when you literally just say I'm wrong, give me a book largely discussing a different topic (western propaganda and fascism) and then refuse to provide examples for your own claims. While my claims are dubious third hand accounts at best, you somehow managed to stoop below me.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Pure comunism sounds nice at first glance, but it also has major issues. Under comunism every one is equal, however inherently people are not equal and should be rewarded accordingly. What this leads to is that high performers are rewarded as much as lazy bums. This causes stagnation in production output as why try hard when you can chill. And as history tells us with Soviet Union, can lead to massive famines. It also creates parallel economies of bribes and favours because well connected and productive people still want to be above every one else, this gives unfair advantage mafias and criminals. As they have no moral problem abusing these parallel economies.
In my opinion, no pure system is good if it's comunusim or capitalism. You have to have a bit of everything like in Scandinavian countries or some Western european countries. You need to reward high performers but not too much. You need to take care of the weak and sick but do not make it that it's not worth working. You have to allow equal access to education no matter your background so everyone has the same starting point.
As a libertarian I have no problem with communism as Marx envisioned it: people spontaneously sharing because they feel like it.
That kind of communism is free.
The problem is when people use guns and governments to force others to “share” against their will. Marx believed that was a necessary step, that would produce the abundance that would allow people to relax and work spontaneously for the collective.
What Marx failed to understand is the most productive economic plan is letting people do what they want (free markets), and that what people want to do is trade.
As a libertarian I have no problem with communism as Marx envisioned it: people spontaneously sharing because they feel like it.
Where do you get this nonsense?
You evidently haven't read the paper, so why do you think you know what Communism even is? Marx railed against "equalitarians." From Critique of the Gotha Programme:
But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labour in the same time, or can work for a longer time; and labour, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labour. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity of the worker as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right ot inequality, in its content, like every right. Right by its very nature can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by the same standard in so far as they are brought under the same point of view, are taken from one definite side only, for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers, and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labour, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right instead of being equal would have to be unequal.But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but itself life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Moreover, famines were ended by the Soviet Union, when they were common under the Tsarist regime. Industrializing and collectivizing improved crop yields and solved the issues of famine that plagued the Tsarist Russia.
Please, if you're going to have an opinion on something, at least do the barest research of the subject rather than imagining a narrative. You can start with my introductory Marxist reading list.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
I simply replied to your comment with highlighted word 'ended' to prove it did not end it. Now you shift the narrative. Not cool, not cool.
Edit: to add, this famine was not caused by some remnant of problems from previous rulers. It was a direct effect of Soviet policy.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
The Soviets did end famine, just not with a wave of a magic wand. Outside of WWII, the 1930s famine was the last famine in Russia, because collectivization and industrialization at the hands of the Communists improved farming methods. The 1930s famine in particular was a mixture of natural causes and mismanagement, but the long term effects were it being the final major famine outside of when Nazi Germany took Ukraine, the USSR's breadbasket.
This wish-washy anticommunism ignores the fact that famines were regular and common under the Tsars for centuries until the Communists stopped it. It isn't "shifting the narrative," you were wrong when you said everyone was paid the same and were wrong when you said this led to famine. You were wrong on your understanding of history and theory at several points each, why speak when you haven't investigated.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
- "Under comunism every one is equal" No. It follows the "from each according to their capabilities, to each according to their needs" idea
- The "phenomenon" you describe is not the cause nor related to the causes of famines within the Soviet Union or China.
- Compare "production output" from pre-soviet to Soviet Russia. It was one of the most rapid and dramatic increase in productive output in known history. The first 5 year plan saw gross industrial output increase by 118%.
- "It also creates parallel economies of bribes and favours because well connected and productive people still want to be above every one else, this gives unfair advantage mafias and criminals." That very accurately describes the post soviet kleptocracy and modern Russian capitalist state.
- "In my opinion, no pure system is good if it's comunusim or capitalism. You have to have a bit of everything" then it stops being communist or capitalist at that point but something else entirely like socialist, syndicalist, communalist, etc. putting every possible form of socioeconomic organization on a capitalist-communist spectrum is extremely reductionist.
Overall wildly inaccurate, uninformed and heavily biased take. Second paragraph shows you have good opinions and solid instincts, you should work on making them a bit more informed.
First of all, thanks for a constructive comment. Rare find when discussed politics online.
- In theory, yes, but in practice, it was not like that. A director of a company would earn max 30% more than the low level employees. If you would perform exceptionally, no one would care. And then you would stand in line for 7h to buy a banana because everyone had almost equal amount of money. Don't get me started. How many years would you have to wait to get a car.
- On second thought, I agree with you on this one. It's more a central control and inability for private people to own business and means of production that caused famines.
- 5 year plan is a horrible example. As it caused a famine that killed 5.7 to 8.7 million people. It's huge sacrifice for a 118% production growth. Take a look at this article on wikipedia It's like Russian land conquests through history, yeah great you now have lots of land but at what costs. Blood and bones of your brothers and sisters and all your neighbors.
- Absolutely, this was happening under Soviet rule. There was a massive trade of favors and bribes. It was not monetary, however. Perhaps someone got some nice cheese from france, so now you can skip line at a hospital. Or perhaps you know a guy in crimea that could host your friend in a beachhouse, and your friend happens to be in charge of allocating appartments so you get one a bit nicer than the other people. Source: geneactions of stories of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and great grandparents. I'm from a country that was a former Soviet state.
- Fair point.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
- Get started. Don't waste both our time with numbers pulled out of your ass and wild speculation. So long as the Soviet Union is our example, how many hours of work did it take to purchase a vehicle? How many hours would you actually need to stand in the "banana line"? Was that even a thing?
- 5 year plan was a perfect example because it highlights that maybe "productive output" isn't the best/only metric to judge by ;)
- Sure, I'd argue that's a bit different but fair enough. However, you should look into if it was better or worse under communism and whether that was a causative effect or correlative with other events going on at the same time?
You must be getting hit by tankies, because this is a perfectly reasonable post.
I worked for a unioned grocery company for many years and there were no merit based raises, because they were negotiated years in advance and dictated by the union contract. Getting any discretionary effort was incredibly rare and difficult, because why am I going to do more and get paid trash wages for it? I'm not saying that's the right way to think, but it's prevelant regardless.
sigh another imagined argument about these mythical “Americans” I keep hearing about.
Most Americans also hate this system haha. I mean, McCarthyism still has its effects to this day, and maybe the people I’ve met are not representative of the general population, but I literally haven’t met one American “in love” with capitalism. The most pro-capitalist argument you’ll get here is “well yeah capitalism has its flaws, but it’s the best we got”…which is a bullshit argument, and is in fact the same argument the south used to convince people to keep slavery around fyi.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Russia Nears Deal With New Syria Leaders to Keep Army Bases
Russia Nears Deal With New Syria Leaders to Keep Army Bases
Russia is nearing an agreement with Syria’s new leadership to keep two vital military bases in the Middle East state, a key objective of the Kremlin after the fall of President Bashar al-Assad.Bloomberg News (BNN Bloomberg)
like this
Dessalines likes this.
That's describing capitalism, where profit maximization is systemically required for one to fulfill their role at "the top" and monopoly is the best way to increase profits.
Historically, "greed" was not the main characteristic of the ruling class. They did not exist under capitalism. Money itself often meant little. Land, a military, prestige, yes. But money fir money's sake was officially frowned upon and generally left to the clergy to handle the hypocrisy.
Under capitalism, profit maximization is necessary for the company you own to survive. You cannot be a "nice capitalist", at least not for long. A person that is nice will have to conform their behavior to maximize profits anyways.
This dynamic does not exist in other systems, where your class membership makes you a relentless recursive tool of the market.
Yes, every non-capitalist country throughout history has been a beacon of peace lmao
Humans are human. Capitalism is absolutely a driver of some conflict, but conflict is driven not only by economic interests, but also political, ethnic, religious, and other interests.
Capitalism is the primary driver of wars, it determines the basic structure of what is and is not permissible, generates nation-states (these did not always exist, actually), and then creates the conditions by which the national bourgeoisie nation-states push for war in order to become international bourgeoisie (imperialists).
For example, the US keeps the middle east in a regular state of war to prevent them from having independent policies regarding oil. It is concerned about oil because of the petrodollar. It is concerned about the petrodollar because it is th3 primary financial war instrument by which it jeeps other countries sending superprofits its way and otherwise screwing with countries using interest rates. And it does those things because the US is the global seat of capital, it is where the big finance companies are based.
How many wars have there been in the middle east since 2000? How has the US been involved? Do they just do it for the thrill of domination?
Look dude, I'm not here to argue about the US's absolutely fucked foreign policy, and in absolutely no fucking way am I saying any one conflict is not driven in whole or in part by capitalism.
But "Capitalism is the primary driver of wars" is a fundamentally false statement. Just because it's a driver of some or even most modern conflicts does not make it "the primary driver of wars." War is a well documented and studied social phenomenon that predates capitalism by thousands of years, maybe millions. Fucking chimpanzee tribes war with each other. There are thousands upon thousands of wars throughout human history that prove your statement wrong.
I thought it would be implied that I'm speaking about modern times. The economic system is the msin driver in large societies, though. In Europe, prior to capitalism, the primary determinant was feudal interests.
Chimps don't have war. They fight, but is every skirmish a war? Wars come from creating and wielding armies.
Well IMO it is a bit simplistic to just toss it to capitalism.
I do agree that capitalists profit from wars and historically have started wars for profit, but the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are a bit more complicated.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Dead people do not produce excess value, alive people do.
I hate to think that way but if you put yourself in the shoes of a capitalist exploiting Palestinians with the help of Israel I think would be much more profitable than killing them.
Just like in Germany during WW2 capitalist interests give way to fascism and hate.
I do agree that it is settler-colonial project.
I also do not think land is the main purpose of the genocide. I think the extermination of Palestinians(and other Arabs) is the main reason, taking the land is a very good additional incentive.
But neither I nor You can know what happens in the heads of genocidal maniacs so we can only guess.
They've openly stated that it's to demillitarize Ukraine as a consequence of NATO encirclement around Russia. Russia was rejected from NATO membership 2 decades ago on account of it turning ultranationalist and regaining the industry sold to the West after the dissolution of the Soviet State, so NATO has been pressing around Russia to force them to capitulate and open up again.
Do you believe this is wrong, and if so, why do you think so many Russians are going along with it?
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Ukraine is being demillitarized
I guess they're trying, but at what cost and to what end? If the idea is that they're afraid NATO is going to encircle and then invade them, they kind of overplayed their hand. Everyone now factually knows Russia is a paper tiger, and they've squandered a significant portion of their Soviet stockpiles and hundreds of thousands of killed and wounded for a few km of land. If NATO wanted to invade, they could get to Moscow in no time. I assume putin is keeping his best reserves near Moscow, but we've seen from the kursk offensive that russian capabilities behind the front lines are severely lacking.
Also the bit about reducing NATO military power.. The US made bank selling HIMARS to Russia's neighbors after seeing how effective they were. They're stockpiling to protect against Russia.
That's not really materially accurate. Russia is an industrialized country and has been producing vast amounts of missiles and weaponry, and moreover the reveal of an ICBM with a conventional warhead, Oreshnik, fundamentally changes the landscape of war until another country reveals they have even 1 of them. You cannot defend against that, and the devastation is similar to that of a tactical nuke without triggering MAD. HIMARS can't defend against such a weapon, and Russia has the industrial capacity to manufacture more.
Russia can't really be considered a paper tiger here, they are the only ones that can afford a war of attrition and bleed NATO dry, and many of the weapons sent by the US are damaged, old, or otherwise unusable, something Zelensky has repeatedly complained about. It will be interesting to analyze after the war is complete, where Ukraine went wrong and what they should have done, etc.
The missile is just more saber rattling until it actually does something. It's kind of pointless to use it against Ukraine. They have plenty of other missiles that will reach, even a hypersonic one, though that hasn't turned the tide much. And if they reach out and touch anyone else, it'll spark retaliation and maybe even a broader conflict.
But I was specifically referring to vehicles, ammo, and tactics. Russia has been fielding truly ancient Soviet stock. T-90s are rare. I don't know if they even have T-14s on the front anymore. They're losing vehicles faster than they can make new ones. It's not a huge issue because of the massive Soviet stock, but they're still fielding inferior vehicles and depleting stockpiles.
Ammo-wise, they've leaned very heavily on north Korea for the past year at least. And as for tactics? Basically none. A huge portion of the soldiers are poorly trained, and basically sent forward in meat waves. Ukraine won't try to hold indefensible locations, so it does work to push them back slowly.
Russia can't really be considered a paper tiger here
Specifically, I mean in conventional warfare. Not nukes.
We're about 3 years into a 3 day SMO. For all of the previously mentioned reasons, Russia could not go toe to toe with any other major power, especially elsewhere. Their logistics are suffering and the front line is next door. Getting counter-invaded was a massive embarrassment as well. Additionally, they lost the proxy war in Syria, either due to pulling resources or Ukrainian involvement with the rebels.
Because Putin is saying that they just kill Nazis. Which os obviously wrong. And russiuans either believe it or understand its fake and move to other countries and hate Putin.
Alone in my city are 200 Russians in a Telegram Community going to University. I visited some events like a large Birthday Party and another event. Noone is for Putin and many did flee from Russia 2 Years ago when the war started.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Who do you think this is applying to? I've seen a ton of people against both. The US government supports Israel because they're a friendly power in the region. But that doesn't make it right, or that most people would agree with the decision.
Also, there's a difference of scales. Russia tried to push to Kiev to install a government, Israel looks like it's more of a land grab. Again, neither are just, but they're not the same.
GE-Proton9-21 Released
Upstream:
- imported piper + PROTON_VOICE_FILES changes
- imported misc proton game overrides
- mono updated to 9.3.1
- icu 64 and 32 bit changes imported
- wine updated to latest bleeding edge
- dxvk updated to latest git
- dxvk-nvapi updated to latest upstream commit
- vkd3d-proton updated to latest git
- vkd3d switched from valve version to upstream wine version (same change was made upstream)
Patch:
- Backported wine bug fix patch 56653 for GetLogicalProcessorInformation, fixes edge case crash on some systems for a few games, notably baldurs gate 3 and divinity original sin 2 (thanks mx-moth)
Protonfixes:
- Add fix for dirt 3 outside of steam (thanks polluxau)
- Remove no longer needed Disgaea 4 fix (thanks UsernamesAreNotMyThing)
- Added fix for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Shredders Revenge (thanks FranjeGueje)
- Add fix for The Callisto Protocol (thanks FranjeGueje)
- Remove redundant dinput8 overrides -- dinput8 is now default n,b in Proton Bleeding Edge (thanks Blisto91)
- Add fix Bright Memory (thanks loathingKernel)
- Disable Esync and Fsync for Supreme Commander (thanks UsernamesAreNotMyThing)
- Added protonfix for SteamDeck=1 for Dauntless on steam
like this
metaStatic likes this.
A lot of doctors hate dealing with the insurance companies as much as we do. They have to deal with medical insurance on both sides.
They all get frustrated whenever they have to not help someone they're perfectly capable of helping
- Why are so many doctors being forced to take out payday loans to make ends meet?
- @Optum is now running a Payday loan business targeting medical practices to which @UHC fails to issue timely payments, denies + delays. Genius!
Optum Pay Advance is a short-term loan offered by Optum Bank®, a subsidiary of Optum Financial, Inc.
US Votes Against UN Resolution Calling for Gaza Ceasefire and Hostage Release
US Votes Against UN Resolution Calling for Gaza Ceasefire and Hostage Release
Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said officials are pursuing “every avenue we can” for a ceasefire deal.Sharon Zhang (Truthout)
like this
Maeve likes this.
like this
Maeve likes this.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Voting is not an endorsement. We had the choice between a candidate that was bad for Palestine, and a candidate that was even worse for Palestine.
It's a pretty simple argument that someone who cares about Palestine should vote for the less bad candidate.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Kamala was not insistent that Israel have free reign like Trump was. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. In the context of these two candidates, they are clearly not the same.
Voting third party is not a "fuck you" to anyone. No one who matters gives a shit about a third party vote.
A third party vote is a waste of a vote and no different from abstaining. A third party vote is simply shrugging in the face a fascism. Trump loves it, because it opened the way to his election.
Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire
Yes, just like Biden. And we all saw what he actually wanted, didn't we?
Voting third party is not a "fuck you" to anyone. No one who matters gives a shit about a third party vote.
Yes it is. It's a big fuck you to the Democrats who campaigned on thinking people would vote for them automatically because they're not Trump. That failed epically.
like this
Maeve likes this.
You are changing the subject instead of defending your position.
Biden has nothing to do with it. He wasn't running for President.
Kamala's position was to strive for a ceasefire, and Trump's position was to give Israel whatever they need to get the job done.
By voting 3rd party, you've taken the position that these two options are identical in your eyes. Either Israel continues with likely similar reluctant support, or Israel continues with encouragement and unlimited support. Which do you think will lead to more Palestinian deaths?
On top of this, this was Kamala's weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you're willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too. All of this so you can be on your high horse and pretend to be morally superior while enabling the worst future for everyone. Good job.
Kamala’s position was to strive for a ceasefire,
And it was an obvious lie, because she wouldn't commit to an arms embargo or sanctions or any kind of consequences. She was just lying so that liberals could pretend like they weren't voting for genocide.
"Ceasefire" was turned into a joke to mean "a temporary pause to get the Israeli hostages back" and there were zero commitments to making Israel face any consequences for it's crimes. Furthermore, she basically pledged to be exactly the same as Biden and Biden is vehemently against an arms embargo. Seems pretty obvious to me. On top of all that, the administration condemned the ICJ and more recently the ICC.
Dunno, seems pretty obvious.
No I'm not. Harris is part of the Biden administration and she's made it clear she wasn't going to deviate from the current position that America currently has under Biden's leadership. That means the same empty platitudes along with unwavering support for Israel no matter how many escalations Israel has. She didn't strive for a ceasefire. That's just meaningless rhetoric given she had no actual plan for it and coupled it with being insistent that "Israel has a right to defend itself" or Walz's "I support Israel's right to expand it's borders" as they perform the wholesale slaughter of an entire ethnicity and culture.
On top of this, this was Kamala’s weakest policy, and she still clearly wins out. You are not only willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, you’re willing to throw trans people, women, and immigrants under the bus too.
I acknowledged how bad Trump is in my above comment. I know what Trump means for a lot of minorities in America as well as the international political stage. I wasn't talking about endorsing Trump. I said that the whole strategy of getting the Arab-American vote by saying "Trump is worse" was a very shitty strategy that backfired horribly. It's common knowledge that a political candidate is not entitled by a vote simply by being the better of two options. You have to make people want to vote for you. As evidenced by the results of the elections. If she wanted the Arab-American vote, a key demographic in a critical swing state, she should have worked towards it. Not simply say "Well Trump is worse, so vote for me", as she supports the slaughter of their people. It's just an incredibly tone deaf and cruel thing to say to a population that is facing what they are facing.
None of that changes the fact that you had a choice between one possible future and a worse possible future, and you opted not to choose and to allow the worse future to arrive.
I'll make it simple for you by reframing my position, the position you were attempting to mock, as a simple syllogism:
Premise one:
Kamala's policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump's.
You've asserted without evidence that Kamala's stated policy is not true and that she would follow Biden's established policy of providing unconditionally continued resourcing. Even if that is true, it is still better than Trump's policy of providing even more unconditional resources.
Premise two:
If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.
You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.
Premise three:
No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election
You've also not refuted this in any way
Conclusion:
Because Kamala's policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.
Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.
I'm not American. I didn't choose anything. America chose Trump. They chose Trump because Harris led a shit campaign where she managed to lose to the most despicable fascist wanna-be dictator we've ever seen, wrapped in an incredibly hated platform (Project 2025), and while campaigning with the most disliked VP in American history. That's my point. That's been my point all along. Democrats ran a shitty campaign by simply thinking that they're entitled to votes simply because of how bad Trump is. That's not how elections work. Anyone with two brain cells knows this. She lost the Arab-American vote because she not only ignored them but actively silenced them. This caused her to lose Michigan, and potentially even Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania because of this.
Premise 1 is factually incorrect. Saying Harris would have worked towards a ceasefire is not a logical conclusion given her refusal to admit it's a genocide, her unwavering support for Israel, and her work as a VP in the current administration. I'll freely admit that Trump is worse in every other policy. But on the topic of Palestine they are the same. Both offer Israel unconditional and unwavering support and protection. Just one openly admits it. Until you are actually capable of answering the above question of explaining why you believe the Democrats have been holding Israel back for the past 14 months or how the Arabs would have voted for Harris if it meant they could save the Palestinians then this fact holds true. And before you repeat the line of "That was Biden this is Harris". She could have distanced from Biden's stance on this but she didn't. She made it very clear that she will continue what Biden started.
Premise 2 is an incredibly cruel and callous argument to make to people who are losing loved ones to the conflict. To paint you a picture of what I mean there is a woman in Minnesota who lost over 40 family members to a single Israeli airstrike. Just one. And this happens daily in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. And then her Governor, Tim Walz, went on the National VP debate and the only comment he could muster about Israel was that he supports Israels right to expand it's borders. And you expected these people to vote for Harris/Walz? With their unwavering support of Israel? This is not an idea that is rooted in reality. We aren't talking about a diplomatic argument, some immigration policy, or some foreign trade agreement. We are talking about the complete eradication of an entire nation through violent means.
Premise 3 is irrelevant. No one expected anyone else other than Trump or Harris to win. Like I said above, Arabs just wanted to send a big fuck you to the Democrats for making it seem that not arming a genocide of their people is too big an ask.
Ah, you aren't even American and you are arguing American politics. No wonder you are full of shit. You don't have to face the consequences of a Trump presidency directly. No wonder you are so fucking privileged.
Stop trying to influence American politics and stick to your own. I'm done with you, there's no point to this.
She wanted a ceasefire, but keep sending them arms unconditionally.
Regardless, lite genocide is still genocide.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Right, so a genocide that kills 1 million Palestinians is the same as a genocide that kills 2 million Palestinians, for example?
Just because two things share a characteristic, doesn't make them the same. One genocide can absolutely be worse than another. You are completely lacking nuance and reason.
Tell the families who are dead and asked to vote FOR genocide that they lack nuance when they refuse to support either of the people who want their people genocide.
At what point does genocide cross the line for you?
What does it mean to cross the line? Does it mean that you just give up and stop trying to use your vote to push the world toward the better future than the worse future? Then never.
If I can choose between a better world or a worse world, I'll choose the better world every time. I won't sit on my hands while the fascists choose the worst one, and it's despicable that you did.
I never claimed to support genocide. I claimed that it is better to vote for the better option of the two. You are moving the goal posts.
I'll make it simple for you by reframing my position, as a simple syllogism so maybe you'll stay on topic:
Premise one:
Kamala's policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump's.
You've asserted without evidence that Kamala's policy is the same as Trump's. That is factually false. They may be close, but they are not the same. Even if Kamala lied about her policy and continued Biden's policy of providing unconditional resourcing, it is still better than Trump's policy of providing even more unconditional resources.
Premise two:
If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.
You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.
Premise three:
No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election
You've also not refuted this in any way
Conclusion:
Because Kamala's policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.
Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.
Whether or not you can "support this" is irrelevant. Whether or not it "crosses a line" is irrelevant. Voting is not endorsement, nor is it support of a candidate or all their positions. It is one of your few ways to peacefully influence the direction of the country. You want a viable party that is anti-genocide? Me too. That option didn't exist. Go run for office. Go make that party. In the meantime, stop rolling over for the fascists and letting them get their way.
I never claimed to support genocide. I claimed that it is better to vote for the better option of the two
I voted for Harris too.
However, none of that discounts that she was pro-genocide, just like Trump. And it's hardly reasonable to ask families of people your genociding to vote for you.
like this
Maeve likes this.
USA is a criminal Country with an condemned criminal as President. Fucking nazis Trump, Netanyahu and all their supporters
like this
Maeve likes this.
baggachipz
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •Serinus
in reply to baggachipz • • •Corigan
in reply to baggachipz • • •Lucidlethargy
in reply to baggachipz • • •ProjektSpartan
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •dosuser123456
in reply to ProjektSpartan • • •dosuser123456
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •bountygiver [any]
in reply to dosuser123456 • • •dosuser123456
in reply to bountygiver [any] • • •Zerush
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •TheWolfOfSouthEnd
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •monovergent
in reply to TheWolfOfSouthEnd • • •🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴
in reply to TheWolfOfSouthEnd • • •TrickDacy
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •emeralddawn45
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •Beetle [hy/hym]
in reply to emeralddawn45 • • •pyre
in reply to emeralddawn45 • • •obnomus
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •Don't you guys think that usa is just a video game like
Manifish_Destiny
in reply to obnomus • • •Sam_Bass
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •Assian_Candor [comrade/them]
in reply to 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 • • •