That was so much cooler than I expected

They accuse us of wanting a Trump presidency so often, but it would honestly make my life so much less stressful if I did

Holy fuck.

For a second I thought it was just that still image of the thumbnail and I was confused that maybe it was just a really subtle joke I wasn't getting

But that was not subtle

I honestly cannot tell if that's anti-lib sarcasm or an unironic lib display

Either way it's making me gag

They fell below their 5% target, coming in at 4.6%

For reference, the US is projected to slow to 2% growth in 2024

Never thought I'd be actively rooting for a pig, but here we are

Because apparently some of us only eat peanut butter and never chew anything solid

Lmao

*removed externally hosted image*

*removed externally hosted image*

Lemmings responding to this interview by saying they'd vote for Reagan if the alternative was Trump

*removed externally hosted image*

They left reddit to teach them a lesson for changing the recipe of their favorite capitalist treat, but have given no thought or import to the decentralized nature of the platform they left it for.

It's a little too good at evoking a sense of loneliness and despair

We're really not helping ourselves with this one

Liberals delude themselves as being different simply because they "support" liberation politics but they are simply helpless against the system that forces them to support fascist policies

My current biggest concern is climate crisis

You can obsessed with that issue all you want...

"You're missing the final debate! It's the biggest political showdown of all time!"

I think that's likely, but I think it's also because Trump wants his money

I really hate it when people make sweeping optimistic claims one way or the other about one candidate or party leading to "shittier" outcomes. It's so vague as to be virtually un-contestable

In my view, the work that needs doing is the same in either scenario, but what changes is the level of disillusionment toward leftist radicalization. I think there's validity to how contented people will end up feeling under harris/walz, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I get nervous when people get excited about the 'worse' candidate because generally I don't think fast and hot radicalizing fires are sustainable. I don't really have a historical example for this, I just feel like only a handful of states have made the socialist transition successfully and they were all in places where industrialization had yet to really raise living standards

I think the path for a successful US socialist/communist movement is much longer and involves the slow and steady disillusionment that comes from the realization that the system is broken even inder the best of leadership. I just don't think that happens in a sudden and violent reactionary uprising - best case I think liberalism returns more fascistic than ever.

I'm not doomery at all about walz signing on. I think it'll give us opportunity to further radicalize socdems and left leaning libs.

I don't think he invented dialectical materialism

For those in here that take offense to this distinction:

2 party political systems function to collapse diverse political perspectives into one of two camps and normalize an 'average' view for both parties. Leftists take issue with this collapse because it erases dissenting views within each party in service of defeating an 'other' at the expense of pursuing our real political goals.

The label matters to those of us who want to make the point that the US democratic party does not really represent our interests; at-best they represent a less-objectionable flavor of the same ideological framework, but one that needs to be dismantled all the same.

"Stop trying to divide us!" is a refrain spoken by those who are better served by the party than we are.

Put another way: "We are not the same"

I used to think the same thing, but I did an effort post about this about a year ago (here's the link)

The article you linked to says something similar to my own understanding: basically, DRM circumvention for personal use is officially not allowed under DMCA and could absolutely be used against you in court, though the likelihood is low. The exceptions the author mentions are pretty nebulous, and the Library of Congress actually addresses the most common cases in their discussions and publication and affirms that they are not allowed.

I don't personally agree with their interpretation, but I think more people ought to know that it's officially not legal to circumvent DRM for personal use.