-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
"Personality cult candidates" Like Bernie who we dropped like an old shirt after the primary and disagree with when he hypes up Joe Biden. 🤣
Holly Shit, that whole post
Holly Shit, that whole post
Blaming Leftists instead of the system designed to not actually care about what the population wants lol
The electroal college is so stupidly funny lol
The electroal college is so stupidly funny lol
The Hungarian and Czechoslovak revolts I'm pretty sure were initiated by communists, communists opposed to Soviet hegemony/authoritarianism, not communism as an idea. At least that's what I thought from my readings.
Color of Law author lecture
So this book is amazing.
Moreover, there's interesting history, before these laws were in place, American has very diverse metro areas. Langston Hughes, the American poet/author, grew up in an area of Cleveland where both Blacks and Jews intermingled regularly.
So this book is amazing.
- Written by an education policy expert who did research on performance disparities between minority and white children.
- He noticed that disparities were removed once household income and wealth were even.
- That lend to another rabbit hole. Why do these disparities exist? They exist due to our heavily segragated residential areas. Schools are funded on property taxes, so segregation is tied to that.
- How does this relate to Socialism and Capitalism?
- Well, the US government heavily subsidized the post WW2 expansion that made the surburbs possible. It wasn't the private sector or The Invisible Hand. However, they did so only with the explicit and written permission from developers to refuse selling homes to Blacks and minorities. The government wanted this. This was during the Roosevelt's tenure. While his New Deal was a watershed legislation, he was a racists, and upheld white supremacy. He's infamously anti-semitic.
- These early suburbs were incredibly affordable at the time.
- So what happened because of this? As you know those homes appreciated in value and created generational wealth. Blacks and minorities were prevented from joining in early on. This generational wealth created massive wealth disparities between white and black families that still persist today.
- Additionally, the book talks about the public housing. Public housing didn't have the reputation it had today--poverty, crime, and so on. It was for the middle class. And it was necessary since the private market couldn't deal with the demand. (And important thing as ardent defenders of capitalism mention that the private sector will also fill demand). It does not and still does not as we still have a housing shortage.
- Public housing was later handicapped by conservatives in Congress. Conservatives didn't want the public sector in housing, believing housing should be taken care by the private sector.
- A series of intentional racist laws lead to this current segregated American existence. It did not happen by accident. White supremacy has its dirty fingers all over the process.
Moreover, there's interesting history, before these laws were in place, American has very diverse metro areas. Langston Hughes, the American poet/author, grew up in an area of Cleveland where both Blacks and Jews intermingled regularly.
lmao this dude againIt's the usual 2016 bitterness dialed up to an insane degree.
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner threaten to sue The Lincoln Project over Times Square billboards
How much did you give themwww.resetera.com
They keep saying shit like this and attacking leftists. Another good one was recently they said hey if everyone always voted Democrat we'd have pushed them further left by now so stop making fun of Biden and just do it!
These takes would be a lot funnier if there wasn't such an undercurrent of contempt for vulnerable people suffering under our current systems and demanding even an ounce of actual meaningful change
If only we could get the participation the Smash threads do.
Most of my posts on this site are in Smash threads and trust me, it's much nicer here.
How many pages is it until a new OT? I'm gonna be the new OP regime change-style.
I mean, Smash threads just revolve in a circular DLC discussion, always going full circle when we run out of things to discuss.
OP
OP
I figured we'd do it once we get to 20,000 posts, so however many that takes.
Congratulations again to our Chilean comrades such as Rushersauce and Serpens007 for this result. Allende lives on.
A fucking Landslide!! Pinochet's chicago boy constitution is dead*
Almost 80% in favor of a new constitution. *We still have a long way, but I'm positive this is going to end up being for the better. We're gonna have to be in alert to avoid sabotages to the new document, but with 20% in favor of the current constitution, I dare them to sabotage the process.
Almost 80% in favor of a new constitution. *We still have a long way, but I'm positive this is going to end up being for the better. We're gonna have to be in alert to avoid sabotages to the new document, but with 20% in favor of the current constitution, I dare them to sabotage the process.
I was already fully on board with this, but when you phrase it like this...
Solidarity to Chilean comrades. May all of LatAm one day achieve full self determination and be free of imperialist exploitation and political engineering.
Tomorrow I am meeting with local representatives to discuss about the organisation and probably then joining the IMT, or more specifically here in Sweden, the local branch called Revolution.
I have finally realised that I am a full on socialist and very likely a Marxist as well after reading the Manifesto and a book called What is Marxism?.
I have finally realised that I am a full on socialist and very likely a Marxist as well after reading the Manifesto and a book called What is Marxism?.
Nice. Is that the books by Woods, since he's the founder of IMT? (https://www.marxist.com/what-is-marxism-book.htm)
Yeah, that one. They published a new Swedish edition last year with a new introduction that is a bit more up to date with the problems plaguing my country that was supposed to be "the socialist country that got it right": https://www.marxist.com/introduction-to-new-swedish-edition-of-what-is-marxism.htm
I was raised on that my country was supposed to be humanitarian. That we were gonna look after our people and everyone else who came here with open arms. What I've seen instead is how people have become more selfish, how even the party called "The Social Democrats" have become more right winged and abandoned the workers of the country to give more to corporations, rich and private interests. We don't talk anymore about how we need to expand the welfare, only how we are gonna try to "preserve" the welfare that has been cut back more and more each year. How we can talk about peace yet behind our own backs sell weapons to mass murdering tyrannies like Saudi Arabia that are committing genocide on the Yemeni people, and then when the refugees from these war torn lands come to us for shelter we close our borders.
It is infuriating!
Not yet, since we still need to choose the Convention members. There is a push for some stuff though, regarding the protection of the enviroment (specially changing the ridiculous water rights), increasing social services, increasing the protection for consumers, nationalizing the biggest exports, etc. Basically change the current focus on private property and initiative into a more socialized society. It'll probably end closer to a social democracy, which after living for 30 years under neoliberalism feels like a communist revolution lmao
You love to see it! May the reactionaries and neolibs fail at every turn.
Whenever I want to make myself sad I think about how Sweden was on the cusp of creating a worker society with public ownership through the Employee Funds plan in the 1970s. There's a timeline where they might have truly become a democratic socialist nation.
Yes, Sweden (and the soc.dems) turned neoliberal faster than most countries in Europe in the 90s...
Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you are drawn to Trotskyism? Many here in the OT are a bit weary of some of the historical (e.g Kronstadt) and ideological (e.g counter-revolution, factionalism) luggage.
I can't say anything about that part at this moment, so far the meetings have focused on Marxism and the core concepts of it, which I have found to be all in agreement for. I first of all have to finish the book I am reading right now, then I thought about continuing with Lenin's The State and Revolution, followed by giving Das Kapital a shot. I hope to get around to Trotsky at some point, cause it is one of the philosophers the IMT follows, but so far none of the ideas and ideology principles have made me balk that I have heard from them.
That feels like confusing two different types of critiques of Trotskyism the former tendency tends to come from Anarchism and the second from more Stalinist traditions - although non-stalinist traditions have their own critiques of the tactical errors that Trotsky made in terms of trying to establish his own Internationale in opposition to the third.
The historical baggage of Kronstadt is also not necessarily a legacy of Trotskyism as a political movement but more Bolshevism and most Trotskyists would have their own different assessments of Kronstadt, some would argue it was a necessary evil, some would argue that it was a reflection of the degeneration that the October Revolution faced in response to dire circumstances of counter-revolution and civil war, others sometimes argue that it shouldn't have happened at all.
The important aspects of the legacy of Trotskyism to me generally are
A) Theory of Permanent Revolution in opposition to Marxist-Leninists "Socialism in one country" thesis which argues for international world-wide revolution through the initiative of the proletariat seizing social, economic and political power through a alliance with the peasanty in late-developing capitalist countries.
B) It's analysis of the USSR as being a degenerated workers state and the material conditions and factors that led to that state which links to the general anti-authoritarian critique of practices of existing socialist countries during the cold war.
C) The development of the "United Front" strategy in contrast to the Popular Front strategy adopted by many communist parties across the developed world which links with Trotsky's ideas about the Transitional Method.
And a forth aspect that was developed by later Trotskyist movements following his death - which I think is more a attempt for the Trotskyist movement to reclaim a important aspect of Leninism the idea of the self-organisation of the working class being the key to creating socialism, with the development of the Soviets in Russia being the closest thing to the ultimate realisation of this concept in historical practice.
I work in the field of conflict resolution/peace building and it is more than a bit of a bummer to see just how fucking white the field is when you are looking at the bigger national and international agencies. And honestly "nonpartisan violence prevention" seems to be synonymous with maintaining the status quo. Was in a meeting with people from all over talking about violence prevention that could result during or after the election in the US, and every single example provided was preventing violence from civilians. When I pointed out that violence is also likely to come from the police, they were stumped. Like, the idea of police being dangerous was something they hadn't considered. I swear these people write a few books and then get stuck sniffing their own farts and don't bother evolving. The field seems to attract the worst kinds of white saviors.
For any of y'all interested, Fania Davis is one of my favorite voices in the field right now, particularly with the idea of combining the warrior and the healer. You can read a short exerpt from one of her books here.
I want to talk about this bit in particular though, especially the last paragraph quoted.
That last paragraph in particular, I feel like I see this all the time and it is so fucking deflating. You see orgs and groups that sound great on paper and have individuals doing great work, but those individuals are not being supported by their "leaders" who tend to have the most fragile fucking egos. Do as we say not as we do. :/
For any of y'all interested, Fania Davis is one of my favorite voices in the field right now, particularly with the idea of combining the warrior and the healer. You can read a short exerpt from one of her books here.
I want to talk about this bit in particular though, especially the last paragraph quoted.
Fania Davis said:
That last paragraph in particular, I feel like I see this all the time and it is so fucking deflating. You see orgs and groups that sound great on paper and have individuals doing great work, but those individuals are not being supported by their "leaders" who tend to have the most fragile fucking egos. Do as we say not as we do. :/
Nah.
I don't have the energy to write an elaborated answer but:
1/ Police was built to protect their interests, so of course police criticism will be shut off by most of these people. Not just "white saviors".
2/ There needs to be reminded that the basic concept of the police, even if built upon different principles than "protect the private property", MEANS violence. Police action IS violent, almost by definition, either physically or symbolically if their simple presence is sufficient to ensure "order".
The concept of an interposition force which should intervene when entities break the social contract means this force WILL have to rely on violence to enforce said social contact on temporarily "unlawful" entities, be they individuals or production collectives. The main discussion about police violence should be its legitimacy. When they kill a black man for dubious reasons, many people would usually deem it illegitimate. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't use violence when legitimate.
And yes in a proper democracy, we, the people, deem what is legitimate. Not the police/judiciary system itself.
Dont have any experience working in any field thats main basis is for helping people (as also still just in college) but my room-mate is working on her doctorate in psychology and the stories that I hear lines up pretty much of all what youre saying. All the leaders being mostly white and completely misunderstanding of how anyone else perceives the world, especially when confronted with any racism they exhibit (as my room-mate had first hand experience dealing with this past spring and summer).
Though read through the excerpt that you posted and do really find interesting the examples brought up of the different slogans that have been used throughout the years for racial justice. How they all exhibit the same message, as clearly the fight is still the same which is depressing to consider ,of if we will ever breakthrough but there is a lot of hope also tied in with the ideas of these movements only becoming more inclusive and only fighting for the rights of more people with better understanding.
Sorry that I haven't been back, been busy working. Running a small business really contextualizes how much capitalism sucks for the self-employed who don't reach the heights of market trading, it kinda comes at you all at once. I'm constantly exhausted. And to top that off, I'm in isolation now because some prick decided to come into the store COVID-positive and physically interact with me and my mother without consent. ANYWAYS...
To start, thumbs up to Chile. A full constitutional re-write is a massive undertaking, but one that offers up so much to gain. If anyone with the power to do something would actually listen, I would make one recommendation, it's to try not to make it completely unassailable. Constitutions need to be living documents with opportunities to change it as a reflection of the modern world. There's a delicate balance to make sure the will of the people is respected by not making it TOO easy to amend and thus subjecting it to conflicting political interests, while not making it too hard to adjust for (hopefully) many generations to come and their likely different material conditions.
That little giggle of a response aside, even with the "end" of racism (which is just shorthand for reducing it to a very small minority, since I doubt anything could purge it utterly from society outside of making it a felony), exploitation of the global south and Asia would continue, because that is arguably less motivated by racism and more a sort of xenophobic ambivalence that may or may not be rooted in racism, depending mostly on the individual. If one of the Western nations had utterly collapsed into a similar state as the nations of the global south, you can bet that the imperialist mindset of the West would have worked double-time to exploit them for their nation's resource and agriculture wealth (modern Russia does that with the global east with a slight degree of regularity... but modern Russia and China have become no better than the West with regard to imperialistic behaviour of their neighbours, even the socialist ones). The difference would only be visible by how they might actually lift a finger to try and stop such a collapse at first because it would be a majority-white population, before sliding into the same bullshit behaviour.
See, this is precisely where I see the issue. "The marginalized realize capitalism screws them over" is something a huge swath of the marginalized already fully understand. Where the failure occurs is not being convincing enough to have them complete that sentence of yours. Because you are correct, there are many presented options, including continuing on with capitalism and trying to reform it (quite literally applying the "bootstraps" mythology to capitalism itself and not seeing the irony in that, but instead seeing a false sense of potential in a broken-from-inception system that demands class division), but socialism is simply not seen as a compelling answer to their uniquely-expressed oppression, and part of that falls on those of us who are already a part of the socialist movement in whatever capacity and have been for a considerable amount of time.
I know that I have spent a considerable amount of time realigning my ideals over the past 10 years or so to ensure comfortable advocacy for socialism to the Indigenous population of Canada, to frame it as the closest expression to the societal traditions of their ancestors as they would be applied in modern life before colonialism attempted to completely strip those traditions away. In fact, I think Indigenous peoples would have a great wealth of information from their cultures to impart upon socialist discourse overall and, again, that should be encouragement enough to advocate for a MUCH greater participation from marginalized groups, just as with arts & culture opening new perspectives with their inclusion within those spaces.
We only cede ground to liberals if we refuse to own our failures and deficits. If a liberal comes at a socialist by saying it's a position for white men, we can simply say "yeah, we know there's a problem there, it's partly created by segregation and an inequal access to higher learning or resources to inform of alternatives among marginalized communities due to capitalism and McCarthyist "red scare" tactics of removing socialist/anti-capitalist discourse out of all but university settings (as shown here as recently as this year), and we are with you in ending that knowledge disparity, but here's the litany of examples of what we've done and are trying to do to fix the problem right now" in lieu of just being indignant or hostile to the suggestion as so many tend to be, then it takes all the teeth out of the argument. And that includes doing things like trying to replace folks like Chapo with more meaningful voices that can speak to a wider range of experiences.
To this point, it's perhaps time we utterly and completely stopped turning a blind eye to the lousy faux-socialist shock-jocks who use far-left/socialist talking points merely to rattle cages, who are strictly "anti-establishment" (which is itself a dogwhistle for "anti-liberal") and care a fair bit less about how that anti-establishment position is expressed or the fact that it's expressed unevenly (such as conveniently ignoring that bigotry is one of the world's longest-entrenched establishments) and those who that appeals to, who believe that the modern fight for equality is propagandized and near-exclusively used as a convenient political weapon (especially when they believe it to be an attack on a social status quo that doesn't warrant dismantling), folks who believe that social justice is an unneeded insertion or distraction into discourse of economic equality and the means to achieve it.
I think we have enough decent people on-side that we can start being picky-choosey about who it is that gets an abundance of the oxygen in the room and who gets to monopolize the megaphone. Do we REALLY want our detractors weeding the undesirables out so that they can give themselves another pat on the back and act like they cleaned up our mess while we allegedly sat idly by? Because that's one way that a movement loses momentum.
Good. Honestly, my biggest concern with Morales was he seemed to be under the misconception that his party and their popularity could not survive without him and refused to groom a replacement so he could step aside. If those numbers are truly accurate, then Morales definitely should have had more faith in the people of Bolivia to be more interested in the policies themselves and not the face behind them.
That being said, I understand what motivates the impulse behind term limits, but in party politics, leaders should be ousted in intra-party primaries and leadership votes and then give the populace the option to oust that leader if the party won't, not have them forced to resign because of the implication that extended stays in power inherently increase the likelihood of corruption and authoritarianism.
But yes, those are things that should be arrived at naturally or imparted compassionately, not through imperialistic force.
But considering we were just talking about Bolivia, seems to me that imperialism usually chooses to force people into power who oppose human rights, if the past few decades are any indication, because of how favourably it works out for the imperialists.
Is that you, Steve Buscemi?
To start, thumbs up to Chile. A full constitutional re-write is a massive undertaking, but one that offers up so much to gain. If anyone with the power to do something would actually listen, I would make one recommendation, it's to try not to make it completely unassailable. Constitutions need to be living documents with opportunities to change it as a reflection of the modern world. There's a delicate balance to make sure the will of the people is respected by not making it TOO easy to amend and thus subjecting it to conflicting political interests, while not making it too hard to adjust for (hopefully) many generations to come and their likely different material conditions.
Well... isn't ending capitalism kinda the entire first half of the whole "fun" of being a socialist? This only encourages the notion of ending racism ASAP, as far as I'm concerned. ;)
That little giggle of a response aside, even with the "end" of racism (which is just shorthand for reducing it to a very small minority, since I doubt anything could purge it utterly from society outside of making it a felony), exploitation of the global south and Asia would continue, because that is arguably less motivated by racism and more a sort of xenophobic ambivalence that may or may not be rooted in racism, depending mostly on the individual. If one of the Western nations had utterly collapsed into a similar state as the nations of the global south, you can bet that the imperialist mindset of the West would have worked double-time to exploit them for their nation's resource and agriculture wealth (modern Russia does that with the global east with a slight degree of regularity... but modern Russia and China have become no better than the West with regard to imperialistic behaviour of their neighbours, even the socialist ones). The difference would only be visible by how they might actually lift a finger to try and stop such a collapse at first because it would be a majority-white population, before sliding into the same bullshit behaviour.
See, this is precisely where I see the issue. "The marginalized realize capitalism screws them over" is something a huge swath of the marginalized already fully understand. Where the failure occurs is not being convincing enough to have them complete that sentence of yours. Because you are correct, there are many presented options, including continuing on with capitalism and trying to reform it (quite literally applying the "bootstraps" mythology to capitalism itself and not seeing the irony in that, but instead seeing a false sense of potential in a broken-from-inception system that demands class division), but socialism is simply not seen as a compelling answer to their uniquely-expressed oppression, and part of that falls on those of us who are already a part of the socialist movement in whatever capacity and have been for a considerable amount of time.
I know that I have spent a considerable amount of time realigning my ideals over the past 10 years or so to ensure comfortable advocacy for socialism to the Indigenous population of Canada, to frame it as the closest expression to the societal traditions of their ancestors as they would be applied in modern life before colonialism attempted to completely strip those traditions away. In fact, I think Indigenous peoples would have a great wealth of information from their cultures to impart upon socialist discourse overall and, again, that should be encouragement enough to advocate for a MUCH greater participation from marginalized groups, just as with arts & culture opening new perspectives with their inclusion within those spaces.
We only cede ground to liberals if we refuse to own our failures and deficits. If a liberal comes at a socialist by saying it's a position for white men, we can simply say "yeah, we know there's a problem there, it's partly created by segregation and an inequal access to higher learning or resources to inform of alternatives among marginalized communities due to capitalism and McCarthyist "red scare" tactics of removing socialist/anti-capitalist discourse out of all but university settings (as shown here as recently as this year), and we are with you in ending that knowledge disparity, but here's the litany of examples of what we've done and are trying to do to fix the problem right now" in lieu of just being indignant or hostile to the suggestion as so many tend to be, then it takes all the teeth out of the argument. And that includes doing things like trying to replace folks like Chapo with more meaningful voices that can speak to a wider range of experiences.
To this point, it's perhaps time we utterly and completely stopped turning a blind eye to the lousy faux-socialist shock-jocks who use far-left/socialist talking points merely to rattle cages, who are strictly "anti-establishment" (which is itself a dogwhistle for "anti-liberal") and care a fair bit less about how that anti-establishment position is expressed or the fact that it's expressed unevenly (such as conveniently ignoring that bigotry is one of the world's longest-entrenched establishments) and those who that appeals to, who believe that the modern fight for equality is propagandized and near-exclusively used as a convenient political weapon (especially when they believe it to be an attack on a social status quo that doesn't warrant dismantling), folks who believe that social justice is an unneeded insertion or distraction into discourse of economic equality and the means to achieve it.
I think we have enough decent people on-side that we can start being picky-choosey about who it is that gets an abundance of the oxygen in the room and who gets to monopolize the megaphone. Do we REALLY want our detractors weeding the undesirables out so that they can give themselves another pat on the back and act like they cleaned up our mess while we allegedly sat idly by? Because that's one way that a movement loses momentum.
Can't say I've ever held back on anything ever and I only ever got a single 48-hour ban if I recall correctly, and I'm pretty sure I legit deserved it.
Good. Honestly, my biggest concern with Morales was he seemed to be under the misconception that his party and their popularity could not survive without him and refused to groom a replacement so he could step aside. If those numbers are truly accurate, then Morales definitely should have had more faith in the people of Bolivia to be more interested in the policies themselves and not the face behind them.
That being said, I understand what motivates the impulse behind term limits, but in party politics, leaders should be ousted in intra-party primaries and leadership votes and then give the populace the option to oust that leader if the party won't, not have them forced to resign because of the implication that extended stays in power inherently increase the likelihood of corruption and authoritarianism.
Some human rights are pretty self-evident and only needed codifying in laws because of people who ignore self-evident reality. They're also an evolving concept as we better understand humanity and the human condition a little better than the people who came before us, rather than being beholden to those old ideals.
But yes, those are things that should be arrived at naturally or imparted compassionately, not through imperialistic force.
But considering we were just talking about Bolivia, seems to me that imperialism usually chooses to force people into power who oppose human rights, if the past few decades are any indication, because of how favourably it works out for the imperialists.
Is that you, Steve Buscemi?
This is part of what I have been talking about.
Biden Harris 2020
Back the Blue
"No excuse what so ever for violence"
Lets keep this in mind when he decides its okay to use drones
Last edited:
Because he's not exactly starting from a position of being not-shit, which most of us are all aware of. And thanks to the GOP, he doesn't have to be. The US is ill and Biden is the hard-to-swallow pill that the populace is asked to take instead of the medieval bloodletting and leeches that are presented as the alternative.
Saw exerpts from the AOC interview that came out today and happy that a huge face in politics is just like Biden wont do anything and trump will be peanuts in a few years with the next republican president
Will hopefully wake someone up
Will hopefully wake someone up
THis is who Jim Crow Joe has always been.
But mulligans and all that. Water under the bridge, just old white man talk.So as long as you're a strong white daddy who can think like a racist, talk like a racist, and act like a racist. The kind of talents that make him uniquely fit for this deplorable ass shithole country.
"HAve U EVen reAD hIs pLaTfOrM?!"
*Joe backs away from platform positions before he gets into office*
"moST ProGrESsiVE cANDidatE In hiSTorY!"
*Joe is a life long racist segregationist mass incarcerator*
Liberas are keenly deluded about Joe Biden. This man is a conservative and a dusty relic of an ugly past. He's exactly the worst candidate the Democrats could put up at this moment, and make no mistake about how fucking gross and horrible that is.
*Joe backs away from platform positions before he gets into office*
"moST ProGrESsiVE cANDidatE In hiSTorY!"
*Joe is a life long racist segregationist mass incarcerator*
Liberas are keenly deluded about Joe Biden. This man is a conservative and a dusty relic of an ugly past. He's exactly the worst candidate the Democrats could put up at this moment, and make no mistake about how fucking gross and horrible that is.
The website shit irks me to a large degree because his campaigning and his campaign rhetoric often times conflicts with what people say is on his website.
Hey homies, I was wondering if someone could PM me a link to the discord. I'm really effing exhausted trying to level with some folx here about the election and I could use some time with some more like minded folx.
Also since someone asked about leftist podcasts on the last page: I really love the Insurgents podcast with Jordan Uhl and Rob Rousseau, Bad Faith with Virgil Texas and Brihana Joy Grey is also really good. ALAB series is a good podcast where leftist lawyers break down interesting cases and figures in the legal world and their implications for policy. Trillbillies is fucking amazing and makes me so frustrated with Amy McGrath lol.
Also since someone asked about leftist podcasts on the last page: I really love the Insurgents podcast with Jordan Uhl and Rob Rousseau, Bad Faith with Virgil Texas and Brihana Joy Grey is also really good. ALAB series is a good podcast where leftist lawyers break down interesting cases and figures in the legal world and their implications for policy. Trillbillies is fucking amazing and makes me so frustrated with Amy McGrath lol.
Is this real? This is so peak liberalism, it reads like hyper realism. Where it's so real as to be unreal.
this is born from the same mentality that gives us diversity training as a means of police reform.
Hmmmmmmm
When can we start really going after these car companies for willfully misleading the public about our impending biosphere collapse?
www.desmogblog.com
There needs to be a reckoning with more than just the oil&gas companies here.
When can we start really going after these car companies for willfully misleading the public about our impending biosphere collapse?
Detroit Knew: GM and Ford Were Aware of Climate Risks Decades Ago Too, Investigation Reveals
Groundbreaking reporting this week by E&E News revealed that, similar to major oil companies like Exxon, American automakers Ford and General Motors (GM) engaged in early cutting-edge climate science research and that the companies were aware as early as the 1960s of potential climate risks that...
www.desmogblog.com
There needs to be a reckoning with more than just the oil&gas companies here.