#(​as opposed to having a history with them)

[evilsoup]

"Social fascism" was perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in political history, but it was one genuinely made by the comintern and the german communist party due to the counter-revolutionary role played by the social democrats -- supporting the war effort; using their leadership of the 1918 revolution to establish a bourgeois republic when workers power was on the cards; recruiting proto-fascist paramilitaries (literally: with adverts in their newspapers) to murder leading german communists in 1919. It's conspiracy theory nonsense to present it in this way.

Notably the social democrats also didn't want unity with the communists. The three arrows of their "iron front" represented their enemies: monarchism, fascism, and bolshevism. It's disingenuous to pretend that the issue was only with the communists.

It also betrays a complete misunderstanding of the internationalist ideology which was (at least notionally) shared by the social democrats and communists to act as if the Russian influence was "outside agitators". The entire point of internationalism, and a fundamental priciple of any left-wing ideology worth a single shit (marxist or anarchist), is that class trumps nation. Germany exists to serve the German ruling class; it was the German nationalists who were the outside agitators sabotaging the international workers movement.

The failure of the German left to unite against fascism is ultimately the failure of the German communists to insist on a united front, to force the corrupt leadership of the historically obsolete social democracy to act or lose their mass working-class base, and to win that base over to the idea of taking power in their own right by demonstrating that a consistent revolutionary strategy was best at smashing fascism. This is because revolutionary socialists, unlike the reformists and liberals who have chained themselves to the runaway train of capitalism, actually have agency.

The key -- the strategy that worked in Russia between the revolutions and which could have worked in Germany -- is for the revolutionaries to build mass movements of the working class which understand themselves as component parts of the world working class and so fundamentally opposed to nationalism. On this basis some operational unity with some wing of the nationalist enemy (say, the democrats) may be possible. But the starting point is independence and clarity of politics: you must clearly understand the democrat leadership to be your enemy and that you want to destroy them, as an absolute minimum condition to building a movement that can maybe support them as a rope supports the hanged man.

Now: most of the left, including most self-described radicals and revolutionaries, are in fact aggreived liberals without any real concept of what it would mean to be a radical or revolutionary. It is true that the vapid, ego-protecting "politics" of this "left" is offputting to most people and generates hyperventilating fights-to-the-social-death over trivial bullshit. The infantile slop politics of individual moral purity must be overcome. I contend that this also requires a clarity of ideological distinctions.

The left SUCKS at recruiting people. And so many of you are part of the problem.

The talk about centrists and moderates being the literal devil I see constantly in online leftist spaces is one great example of the left's failure. Yes, it sucks when the people don't see how horrible the right is. But centrists are some of the most open people to discussion- and some already lean left!!

You can't demonize moderates to such an extent that you close yourself off to them and then wonder why you're losing swing states.

Centrists aren't even always people with all the privileges- you will find plenty of people who are part of marginalized groups who are concerned about politicians on all sides.

You can be a smol radical leftist bean all you want who only talks to other smol socialist and communist beans, but you're never going to make the difference you want to in the world that way. It's the cold, hard truth. It doesn't mean you have to engage in discourse with everyone- some people have no real hope of changing and are emotionally draining- just more than your bubble.

I am tired of the left eating itself alive and deranged people like Trump winning.

[hestzhyen]

Chapter 57 Cope Posting

Not like this, dear void... not like this. The blessing/curse of Kagurabachi chapters ending in 7 being absolute banger cliffhangers continues and there is not enough copium in the world to get me through to next week. This entry is an absolute mess...

Let's start with practicing on the editor's comments again. Sorry if the colours are hard to read on brighter backgrounds, I live in Dark Mode as much as possible.

First page: ハクリが飛宗の転送に成功! そして- [Hakuri ga Tobimune no tensou ni seikou! Soshite-, Hakuri successfully transfers Tobimune! And then-] Last page: 座村, 漆羽… 事態は混沌へ… [Samura, Uruha... jitai ha konton he..., Samura, Uruha... the situation turns chaotic...] noting that the word used for "situation", jitai (事態), specifically has negative connotations (as opposed to 状況 [joukyou], which is neutral).

These comments are rarely more than fluff just to give the editors some presence in the work itself, so I don't take them as definite indicators of anything going on in the plot. But man. Man. "Bad situation" seems to be putting it lightly. I was ready to take you off the list of possible traitors, Samura! I was seriously going to do it! Whyyyyyyyyyyy

Chihiro and the Pink Menace

Fine, first up... school?

How does our cast stack up to the average student after getting home schooled in murder and cool action poses?

It was obvious to everyone that this arc would involve Chihiro learning about the unpleasant sides of his dad's legacy. So this is just a "hey don't forget" moment for us that also highlights how far removed Hiruhiko and Chihiro are from regular society. Those two (and Hakuri) should be in their last year of high school, complaining about homework or stressing about their future college/job plans right now instead of fighting to the death. Poor guys.

I don't want to presume too much about Hokazono-sensei's views, but I really like directly acknowledging that winners write history and so their wartime cruelty is often downplayed or re-framed as heroism. These kids and even Chihiro only know the revised version of what happened, not the truth of the matter.

Home schooled Chihiro confirmed! Kinda!

Anyway, some more John Plan Reveal. He wants Chihiro to learn the truth about his father's legacy and the impact it's had- that's why he hasn't been "harvested" yet. This implies that there's some terrible thing that could upend Chihiro's entire worldview to be learned. But we kind of already knew that based on everything I just said.

I hope this isn't a flag for John trying to convince Chihiro to join him. There are awful secrets that are going to be unearthed about Kunishige and the Kamunabi this arc for sure, but it's kind of a waste of our time to do the "oooh it was worse than you thought why don't you join us to set things right" rigamarole.

Obviously the Hishaku have some compelling reasons to do all this if they can get someone as loath to kill as Samura on their side to murk his war buddies. It's just never gonna convince Chihiro so I hope we don't get a moralizing yapfest to accompany John's outstretched hand. I trust the writing though! So far it's been almost nothing but excellence so... chill, me. Just wait and see.

I think that no matter what happens Chihiro will continue to forge his own path with allies who care for him at his side. He won't choose the government's path, or the Hishaku's, or even his dad's- he'll create something new. Standard stuff for a shounen series but I never get tired of seeing it!

Before moving on to the coping session, there's something neat in this scene that I want to ramble about:

Local yapper yaps while the guy listening to him literally overthinks

I'll use the JP version if I have to, but I like how Chihiro's inner monologue deliberately overruns Hiruhiko's speech bubble to show that he's not paying full attention while his thoughts are in overdrive. He's still partially listening but he's not quite as composed as he appears to be on the outside, which is confirmed by the close-up zoom into his stressed look with the sweat drops. Yet when we zoom out, he seems a bit more put-together like usual. He's still exhausted from yesterday, man! Really should have rested up... at least the author acknowledges it. (Forced bed rest soon? Hopefully?)

This is how Hiruhiko was able to get the drop on Chihiro. Chihiro's got a lot on his mind and he has trouble focusing, just like Uruha chided him for on the train. His resolve is unshaken but he's still prone to wavering in the moment as he tries to process things. He even misses the fist time Samura's name was mentioned! Clearly Chihiro needs Hakuri or Uruha or someone there to yell encouragement at the right time to stop him from getting lost in his own head. But he's got a lot to think about and work through right now, so it's understandable why he's so stressed out.

Poor Chihiro. He's coming to the conclusions that we, the readers privileged with having weeks IRL to ponder new information, came to long ago. The Master is not treated like a hero but a prisoner, and probably for very, very good reasons. Ones good enough to convince Samura to make a deal with the devil.

What Actually Happened?!

Not all the blades have themes from nature, it seems. Geisha offered many different types of entertainment to guests, from performing music to conversation to serving sake. So now we have the idea behind the name [Swaying Sake]!

First up to delay just a little longer: Kumeyuri power reveal! Seems to be based in some kind of performing arts aesthetic with the geisha that were conjured. Fitting for the guy who wears kabuki eye make-up right? ...And for the next bearer, who interrupted a kabuki performance to pick it up in a theater... I see you and your foreshadowing, Hokazono-sensei.

Fine. I'll admit it. The ending of the chapter makes it crystal clear that Hiruhiko is the new bearer contracted to Kumeyuri by having his origami butterflies come undone as he grasps the hilt in his teeth. Can't even hope it's another case of someone "borrowing" power like Kyora did with the Shinuchi of the bunch.

Magatsumi's the only blade that can be used by someone not contracted to it, hence the extra protections it needed.

So that means... yeah. Uruha's gone. Just like that.

There will be thousands of theories about what exactly happened to Uruha, why Samura made a deal with John, what the details of that deal were- we'll get the truth soon. I'm most interested in the reasoning that ties into Samura's sincere beliefs of killing being an evil act.

The burden of death weighs so heavily on him that he blinded himself in penance. But he's willing to let his own apprentice die -probably even kill him himself!- because of... what? What was so horrible about fighting with the Master and Kunishige's weapons for the good of the nation? What compelled him to help the Hishaku kill the remaining bearers and upend the peace they earned?!

Hey, Samura. Is it really so bad to be called a war hero while being treated like a prisoner in a comfortable government-provided jail facility? Is it so horrible that "alternative facts" pass for real history to bury whatever horrors you witnessed and possibly perpetrated? Is it truly awful to have people willing to die for you despite all the grave sins you've committed? That they're likely completely unaware of thanks to government propaganda and being too young to have witnessed the truth?

...I need those Seitei War flashbacks pronto.

*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Wait a minute. Jail? Even the friggin' onsen?

Yup! The Master's the only one being treated like a dangerous criminal outright, but the 慚箱 [sanso] are just dressed up prisons for the Bearers. The Kamunabi ain't even subtle about it.

慚 [san] - to feel shame 箱 [sou] - box

The government put these guys in specially-constructed (or repurposed) buildings officially referred to as "shame boxes" and told them they couldn't leave. Even the name given to one of them is a bit much! 国獄温泉 [Kokugoku Onsen] translates to:

国 [koku]- country/state/national government 獄 [goku]- jail/prison 温泉 [onsen] - hot spring

Gee, I wonder if Uruha was having a good time at State Prison Hot Springs?

That said, while there may well be some bitterness between the Bearers and the Kamunabi, it's not the main motivating factor for Samura. His is definitely rooted in how they all acted during the war and how guilty he feels now that they're promoted as heroes.

*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*

It looks like Chihiro's being summoned by Hakuri in the very last panel so we might get some perspective on Samura's reasoning next week. Probably no clear answers right away, but at least enough to see if he really was the one who killed Uruha and a bit of insight into why. And to see if Uruha's dead at all... I mean, if we don't see a body... let me be delusional, okay?!

I'm just not able to go all-in on believing Uruha's dead. But it's not because I don't think he actually is... it just doesn't feel real after spending weeks preparing to let go of Samura. Not to mention the tried-and-true tactic of baiting out strong emotions with implied character deaths.

Normally I don't take death foreshadowing like this too seriously in shounen series. I just wait to see if the author is faking me out or not before getting stressed (unless it's Hakuri, in which case I stress responsibly). But Kagurabachi is a series that lured the MC with a child's severed leg and showed two suicide attempts on-screen, one of which was horrifically successful- right in front of someone who was already traumatized too. Hell we lost most of the anti-Kuregumo squad without much fanfare back in the Sojo arc! Only actually showing a child being tortured on-screen is too much, apparently. This series is dark as hell when the author wants it to be and Uruha's death is probably another one of those times.

There's hope in me that Uruha can still come out of this alive just because I like him so much, but I want the author to follow through on his death when it's presented as such an ominously real scenario. All signs point to Uruha being a goner, so don't make it look iron-clad then say "nah" the next chapter with some technicality that we couldn't have known about until the reveal. I would rather lose Uruha in an unexpectedly painful way than be faked out just to get the reaction out of me, y'know? Don't toy with me. Commit to crushing my heart, dammit.

But, God... oh man. I fell for the bait and got stupidly attached to a Bearer in the arc named after killing them. I even knew bad times were coming because of all the levity at the start of the arc but still went on hoping nothing would happen so soon. Laugh at me, I deserve it. I probably helped this manifest by mentioning how awful it would be if Chihiro found out a Bearer died because Hiruhiko was able to contract with one of the blades. Saying "I crave the angst that will come from this situation with every fiber of my being" in a post tag was overkill. It's just:

Author: names the arc after assassinating the bearers

Reader: gets attached anyway

Author: assassinates a bearer

Reader: ╚(•⌂•)╝

Coping Theory

May as well put my two cents in on how it could have gone down while I'm here...

I wonder if he planned to die in the raid instead so it looked like an unavoidable accident, sparing everyone else from the carnage.

This exact sequence- the Makizumi talking about honor in death for saving Samura, and Uruha's words that the Bearer's lives need to be valued above others'- is what solidifies Samura's resolve. This man is filled to the brim with guilt and self-loathing (much like another swordsman we know). He cannot save himself, but... perhaps he can take some equally bad sinners down with him for the greater good. He's not only a mirror for Hakuri, but Chihiro as well- one's resolve to save no matter the cost to one's self, and one's resolve to go to hell for what they believe is right. That's how I'm reading this until we get his own insight on the matter, at least.

It's not a stretch to infer that Samura thinks the Bearers are better off dead in large part due to the powers they command and things that were done during the war. That's still a huge mystery to be unraveled but I mean:

Seeing the bare minimum of Magatsumi in action really drives home how horrific these "heroes" could seem out on the battle field doesn't it? No wonder the clone sorcerer described the Seitei war as "hell on earth". But the public has no knowledge of this. They only got the sanitized version fit for PR purposes and feel-good stories.

The Hishaku seem to be intent on dismantling this image. Perhaps that's how they got Samura on their side? Not sure how the current Bearers dying and giving the Hishaku access to that dreadful power is better than the status quo, but that's something that will become clear with more reveals about the ideology driving the group. Maybe Samura doesn't care so much about the rest of the world and just wants to do what's best for the truth that's been buried under nearly two decade's worth of secrecy.

As to what happened with Uruha... two things come to mind. One I think is more likely, and one I want to cling to until it's ripped away as I sob and beg for just one little bit of comfort.

Most likely, I think Samura and Uruha had an exchange about ideals and the value of their lives. Samura overpowered Uruha per the plan as the "trump card" and that was that.

In delulu land, I want Samura to have been double-crossed. As in he made a deal on the condition that the lives of the people he cared about would be spared, but of course Uruha couldn't be allowed to live. So the Hishaku ensured that he'd die there no matter what. It's a bunk theory since Mr. Hatshaku left once the situation turned against him... maybe incorporate some of the datenseki mind control stuff in there somehow? I don't know. Just let me have this until canon proves otherwise.

Hakuri and Chihiro, Though?! And Miscellaneous Questions

(Ch. 46) I'm not going to be okay for a while and neither are they.

Best boys are really gonna go through it no matter what Chihiro is summoned back to. They'll be in a rough way... not only did they lose Uruha and hand Kumeyuri to Hiruhiko, but Samura betrayed them all... oof. So much for proving themselves to the Kamunabi. They're going to get an earful and be set back in the "negotiations" big time.

No doubt Chihiro will put this burden on his shoulders too, even if no one could have predicted Samura's defection to the enemy. It's his dad's legacy that's causing all this strife right now. He'll be more motivated than ever to unravel the war's true history and I'll be right there with him hoping he doesn't push himself too hard or harshly. The son shouldn't be responsible for the sins his father committed before he was even born. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

Meanwhile...

"I'm still good for it," wheezes the guy with blood gushing out of his nose at an alarming rate.

Hakuri will probably blame himself too. Depending on how things shake out, it could be for anything from accidentally arming a traitor to seeing someone die in front of him again. There's a good chance he'll (temporarily) lose the thing that makes him useful too, so that'll be an extra layer of angst for him to deal with. What value does a broken tool that couldn't fulfill it's one purpose have?

I also wonder what prompted Hakuri to summon Chihiro away from Hiruhiko. He's kind of in rough shape to do it just 'cause he misses his (boy)friend. They have cell phones to communicate with so it seems a bit abrupt to summon him back without checking first. Hakuri's also not the type to impose on someone to protect him. Nor is he the type to drop Chihiro into the middle of a life-or-death situation without a sense of mutual understanding first. So there had to be some kind of pressing need. The timeline of events means he's summoning Chihiro right after Uruha was killed, so... more soulmate stuff maybe? Their souls call out to each other and resonate when they're in distress, after all (it's canon baybeeeeee). They're in perfect harmony and all that. Sorry for the shipping nonsense I just need any bit of fluff I can get right now.

So many questions that might not get answered...

What about the Makizumi? Will they defect to serve Samura? Or will they try to help get Hakuri to safety with the Kamunabi? Samura doesn't want to kill them at all so no matter what happens they'll live at least. Hooray an elite squad that didn't bite the dust... (I think they will choose Samura because of everything he did for them).

How did Hiruhiko know when Kumeyuri was usable anyway?! Was it some signal from his mystery supporter that was lurking outside the window? And who was that- did Worst Jeanist show up?

Samura's loath to kill innocents, but does Hakuri count as one? Would losing his sorcery be enough to count him as neutralized for the Hishaku's purposes? Was exhausting Hakuri the main reason why Hiruhiko sent all the forces to the temple in the first place?

Hiruhiko wasn't surprised to see Tobimune disappear, so the Hishaku probably know about Hakuri's power. Their mole within the Kamunabi should get a bonus for the turnaround time on learning that bit of info and sending it on. Unless John's playing 5D chess and knew about Hakuri's awakening and team-up with Chihiro before they even met the Kamunabi anyway... perhaps even orchestrated it too... that would definitely need a very good explanation.

Alright. Okay. Let's wait on tenterhooks together, dear void. No waterworks until they show the body, got it?

[sob]

[verstpn]

"prost and senna were so brutus/caesar coded" WRONG.

[gata-niilista]

America's Founding DocumentsMain PageExplore the DocumentsDeclaration of IndependenceConstitution of the United StatesBill of RightsSpecial FeaturesHigh Resolution DownloadsSign the Declaration or ConstitutionThe Faulkner MuralsMeet the Framers of the ConstitutionOther ResourcesVisit the National ArchivesView Other Milestone DocumentsBrowse Teaching Resources for the Revolutionary EraCivics for All of USExplore Online ExhibitsSearch the National Archives CatalogDiscover the Founders OnlineShop the Archives StoreAsk a Question on History HubDeclaration of Independence: A TranscriptionNote: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.In Congress, July 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the da

kisses !!!

no nyen cause he ugly

[wonder-worker]

"As for the government of the kingdom, [Edward V] had complete confidence in the peers of realm and the queen."

"According to the Crowland continuator, [Elizabeth Woodville] seems to have taken the king's place in listening to his council immediately after Edward IV's death. It does appear that she expected to have some role in her son's kingship, and the Crowland continuator’s report of the letters sent to her by [Richard of Gloucester] indicates that she had good reason to expect to be able to work with him and the other councillors: 'the duke of Gloucester wrote the most pleasant letters to console the queen; he promised to come and offer submission, fealty and all that was due from him to his lord and king, Edward V, the first-born son of his brother the dead king and the queen'."

"[However], in what was Gloucester's first coup, Edward V was separated from his household and Woodville advisors. When the young king questioned the move, Buckingham was reported to have told the boy 'It is not in the business of women but men to govern kingdoms'. The blunt remark referred to the authority of Elizabeth Woodville as queen and the power she must have anticipated within the new political climate left by Edward IV's sudden death [...] While the veracity of this scene is questionable*, the words attributed to the duke no doubt seemed plausible to Dominic Mancini who believed they exemplified the popular sentiment held by men [...]."

-Dominic Mancini, The Usurpation of Richard the Third / J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 / Alexander R. Brondarbit, Power Brokers and the Yorkist State, 1461-1485

*One of Mancini's key sources seems to have been Edward V's own doctor, John Argentine, who attended to him in the Tower. It's very likely that he was the one who recounted this scene to Mancini, which suggests that it should probably be considered more credible than not.

[storywestistrash]

i am actually so tired of the way westerners treat eastern europeans

[hanzajesthanza]

i do actually headcanon that angoulême had some friends spread throughout beauclair & throughout the sansretour valley. but they weren’t good friends. just… “i know a guy” type of deals. very golan drosdeck type of random association like. you’re nineteen. how do you know all of these people. idk. it’s a small criminal underworld after all. but like drosdeck she would have debts with all of them and none of them would be willing to help her and some still are looking to scam her. and despite her… ‘worldliness’, she is still quite naïve

[arcticdementor]

DoIng my devil's advocate schtick:

Look. If you want to maintain power indefinitely, you have to update your knowledge and ideology faster than the voters.

Or just stop giving the voters a say in governance

For example, American voters don't hate immigrants that much, they hate the second/third order effects caused by immigration.

It doesn't matter why the voters don't want so much immigration, they're simply wrong to oppose it, and it is the job of elites to do the right thing (the Rousseauan "common will") regardless of what the ignorant masses (the mere "popular will") feel about it.

It's not the job of the party of morality and the Right Side of History to appeal to the masses, it's the job of the masses to vote for their betters — and certainly not a vulgar orange Mussolini. The Democrats did not (cannot) fail the voters, the voters failed them; and it is the voters who need to be fixed. The job of the party is not to change their policies, it's to figure out how to make the electorate less sexist, racist, and generally Fascist.

A Democratic constellation (of the party and aligned institutions like newspapers that guide personnel) that pre-hedges on immigration by limiting immigration based on the housing supply and based on support budgets, being selective about immigration, and not denouncing America and not opposing assimilation, successfully reduces the salience of immigration as an issue so that Republicans cannot campaign on it.

Some people always think that the way to prevent the Nazis from taking power is to "steal" the Nazis' policies and enact them yourselves; but you know what you become when you enact Nazi policies? The whole point of fighting GOP fascists is to prevent the enactment of GOP fascist policies, like xenophobic limits on immigration, or culturally-intolerant "assimilation."

The voters were correct that the combination of unfiltered mass immigration with restrictions on housing supply was either immoral or insane.

Immoral how? Sure, some people are hurt, but how many of them are the sort who deserve it? And for those who are innocent, just as military commanders in war can't let the certitude of innocent civilian casualties deter them from striking valid military targets, some prices, however unfortunate, are worth paying to achieve a better outcome overall.

Democrats tend have this idea that voters owe them a permanent majority. Voters do not owe Democrats a permanent majority.

Why not? Are they not the natural rulers, entitled to their authority? Are they not, as Curtis Yarvin said, "elves" — so much more beautiful, and pure, and moral, and just all around superior? Do they not rule because, again per Yarvin, they are the only class of people capable of it? The only ones with the smarts, the "elite human capital," to rule, all others being too stupid and ignorant to rule? Are they not entitled to permanent rule by virtue of this obvious, inborn aristocratic superiority? (Just compare a noble, aristocratic specimen like Yarvin against a scion of flyover chuds like Vance, and is it not obvious which people were born to rule and which born to be ruled?)

Yes, you have to actually get in there and do the labor of governing. You can't automate governing and then just ignore it.

Why not? Per Max Weber, the entire enlightenment political project has been about replacing charismatic and traditional authority with rational-legal authority. Replacing "arbitrary" and fallible human judgement with algorithms and procedure. Is not the ideal bureaucrat a sort of human machine, impartially implementing algorithms without the slightest personal judgement of their own? Hasn't the liberal project since Kant been to develop the right set of rules and incentives, that will provide the "moral alchemy" to produce peace and prosperity even in a nation of "rational devils"? Haven't we all been "dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good"?

Hasn't this bureaucratization and managerial revolution of the past few centuries been part of an arc toward machine rule, merely waiting for the technology to catch up? Would we see "software eating the world" had we not already transitioned so much of "the world" away from individual human judgement to algorithms? All that remains is developing the AI advanced enough to take over for all the human cogs in the current bureaucratic machine, while retaining "alignment" with same.

(Putting this in a new conversation because to do otherwise would be the most blatant kind of derailing.)

@jadagul:

And the problem that is, in a functioning democracy, no one ever has a durable winning coalition. Parties will alternate! The left and the right should each be in power about half the time! That's why a healthy center-right party is important to functioning democracy.

Leaving everything else aside - this is obviously insane, right?

...not that it's wrong. Empirically speaking, in a FPTP system, it's an accurate description of how things go. But it also seems like a grand sweeping indictment of democracy as a system, at the most fundamental level.

If there is literally no way to govern well enough that the voting masses will keep you in power so that you can keep on governing well - if the fickleness of the electorate will just always result in the Two Main Choices sharing power over time, such that you have to work outside the electoral system in order to keep those Two Main Choices reasonable and healthy - then what actual value is the voting providing, here? How can we possibly square this with the idea that the will of the people is producing some kind of wise guidance? How does the entire thing fail to be just a cruel farce?

(If we're on board with the idea that it's just about perceived legitimacy and quelling-of-violent-power-struggles, that's fine, but it also suggests a very different kind of rhetoric than what you normally get.)

[hotsugarbyglassanimals]

i feel like this site leaning heavily into the "pedophilia and incest and rape kinks are good" angle lately can be attributed to the mass expulsion of sex workers and black ppl on here ngl

[twentyfivemiceinatrenchcoat]

thinking about that One scene in the secret history but w cult leader geto (<- having a normal one)

[bucephaly]

watching someone's children is work, and people aren't entitled for asking to be paid for working. where did you get that idea /genq

I got that idea from actually learning about other cultures and breaking the hold western capitalist individualism had on my ideas of how the world works

I'm not saying put up a sign on the street saying free daycare, I'm saying that if someone trusts you enough to ask to watch their kids, that has the potential to be a great friendship if you like, actually help them out. I'm not saying never say no or that you are necessarily an asshole for asking to be paid, I'm saying that they aren't entitled or selfish for asking for help from people they trust.

I just don't get this modern entitlement and individualism where like, a friend confiding in you and seeking advice or a listening ear is seen as 'emotional labor' and shit like that. Like. Humans naturally want to help each other and it's so weird to me seeing people just refuse to like... be nice. It's about building community.

Children are raised communally in sooo many cultures and have been throughout most of history, the modern western idea of the nuclear family is so unhealthy for both parent and kid.

[fiapple]

Okay, you know that scene in Catwoman v.1 where Selina begs Maggie to scream, cry, lash out, & curse her rather than turn to a darker version of herself?

I need you to understand that, if it were written with any sense of integrity, that would be the attitude Bruce has towards Jason post-resurrection. At least after becoming privy to the fact that Jason does not personally blame Bruce for his death.

In my opinion, Bruce would sell his arm for a penny on a streetcorner providing it gave Jason non-homicidal means of coping, for Jason to view him as responsible, as a second murderer. For him to curse "hereoism", & vigilantes, & the whole fucking lifestyle- decry it as an unbelievable farce & leave it all behind to go back to being Jason Todd of Crime Alley, who only did what he had to do to survive. Bruce would be so far beyond willing to carry that weight if it meant his boy would be off the track of his homicidally self-destructive rampage. If it meant Jason realizing he is more than just a revenant, that he is alive, that he can have a life.

The only way it makes any sense to me is if Bruce would accept, even embrace a world in which Jason views him as a horrible dad, an irredeemable piece of shit who is directly responsible for his murder, if it just meant that Jason did not have to utterly sacrafice his sense of humanity & compassion to make it through the world. He'd give near anything for it or it makes no sense. That's his son. His son who was dead but is now alive, for all he does not seem to grasp that himself.

Also he should have let Jason pop the clown. Not even for ethical reasons, but in the chase of giving Jason a chance at the realization in the world they do live in where Jason will not allow himself to view Bruce that way. Because he refuses to harm his son, or let him be taken in another explosion. Not when he just got him back, not when his son has not even gotten the chance to truly come back to life.

(I also think it would be a far more interesting jumping-off point post-utrh for Jason, but that's somewhat besides the point.)

[lord-squiggletits]

I need to reread the comics again to have specific arguments/evidence for this, but like

I feel a bit like I could've been sympathetic to the way other Cybertronian colonies view Cybertron, if it weren't for the fact that at least several of them (as in, ones that get notable dialogue/screen time) are so low-key self-righteous?

Like, idk... there's a lot of criticism of Cybertronians because they're so "warlike" and how their obsession with violence and vengeance is just dragging the whole galaxy down with them, but uh. The Autobot-Decepticon war was basically a product of societal ills bubbling over for like 6 million years beforehand and then finally boiling over into a 4 million year war that lasted as long as it did because the people involved had immense social/psychological trauma from being "raised" in an oppressive society.

So when the colonists come in being all 'omg you people are so violent and uncivilized why don't you just like, stop fighting' it kind of pissed me off a little bit as a reader/person like. Idk the colonists really came into this society of people full of massive amounts of trauma where even before the war society was super oppressive and no one has any experience of living "normal" lives unaffected by violence and bigotry. And the colonists were like "ummm wow why don't you guys just??? stop fighting???." Like idk it wasn't EVERY SINGLE MOMENT, in fact I think that when it was played for laughs it's quite a funny "fridge horror" type element. It was just annoying because like.... IDK???? It's just really annoying to watch a bunch of people who lived relatively sheltered lives on their own planets come to a different planet full of traumatized people and be like "omg why are you people so fucked up" IDK BRO MAYBE BECAUSE THEIR SOCIETY WAS OPPRESSIVE AND THEY LIVED THROUGH A LIFELONG WAR???

It also doesn't help that the colonies were literally founded based on imperialism and conquest so like, it's fucking rich to hear colonists scolding Cybertronians for their violence ruining the whole galaxy while literally sitting on planets that their Primes colonized from others. The hypocrisy of this is briefly mentioned in Unicron (literally the FINAL STORY OF THE SERIES) but like, that's basically the only time Cybertronian characters are given a reprieve of sympathy from other characters in universe and it's so tiresome.

I've talked to other people who didn't like the colonists and thought they basically (narratively speaking) existed just to shit on the existing characters, and it's actually really easy for me to sympathize with/outright agree with that assessment of the story considering how much of exRID/OP seems to be preoccupied with "Cybertron/the Primes/Optimus sucks" with very few reprieves for anything positive happening and even fewer chances for characters to get to explain themselves and experience a little bit of justice? Like, as the audience, it's just very frustrating to see the characters you spent hundreds of issues keeping up with get shit on by a bunch of "literally-who"s and then not really get a chance to ever defend themselves, either by literally defending themselves in conversation or having some sort of narrative thing happening that vindicates them at least symbolically

[secret--history]

I know that 'The Secret History is a satire' is an extremly prevalent take, and I think it came about as a response to the idea that tsh "romanticises" things like classist ideas/substance abuse/murder, but like. It can be unsupportive or critical of the characters without being a satire. Satire is not the word you're looking for here

[bisexualamy]

.

[wonder-worker]

Any judgement on (Richard III)’s reign has to be seen as provisional. The critic of the reign only has to consider how the Tudors would now be regarded if Henry VII lost at Stoke, to realize the dangers of too many assumptions about the intractability of Richard’s problems. But it would be equally unrealistic to ignore Richard’s unpopularity altogether. The fact that he generated opposition among men with little material reason for dissent, and that the disaffection then continued to spread among his own associates, says something about what contemporaries regarded as the acceptable parameters of political behaviour. There is no doubt that Richard’s deposition of his nephews was profoundly shocking. To anyone who did not accept the pre-contract story, which was probably the majority of observers, the usurpation was an act of disloyalty. Gloucester, both as uncle and protector, was bound to uphold his nephew’s interests and his failure to do so was dishonourable. Of all medieval depositions, it was the only one which, with whatever justification, could most easily be seen as an act of naked self-aggrandizement.

It was also the first pre-emptive deposition in English history. This raised enormous problems. Deposition was always a last resort, even when it could be justified by the manifest failings of a corrupt or ineffective regime. How could one sanction its use as a first resort, to remove a king who had not only not done [nothing] wrong but had not yet done anything at all?

-Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A Study of Service