I'm sure that applies to a good chunk of the population, but I think there's more to "no war but class war" than just dodging personal responsibility.

The owning class needs to convince people to vote against their best interests, and the primary tactic they use is to divide the working class.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Would winning the class war fix everything else? Hell nah - the rich aren't just making these divisions up. But they are going to do their best to stoke the flames, because they need the distraction. We need to fight patriarchy no matter what. But the class war is making those fights harder.

All that said, trying to downplay legitimate concerns about oppressed populations by saying "no war but the class war" is very "all lives matter".

Ah yes, we simply need people to ask for better!

I mean, I definitely agree with you - we should have an educated, engaged population that is able to critically assess what they're being told and realize when people are trying to distract them from important issues. Of course! That's still the destination, though, and it's a ways off.

Why don't people ask for better?

Because education funding is too low.
Because grocery bills are too high.
Because folks are working multiple jobs just to try to get by.
Because we've had to watch Trump/the GOP be weird little gremlins while pretending to have the moral high ground and GOD does it feel good to watch them melt down over being called on it.

"Asking for better" is a healthy salad, and watching someone get dunked on is a greasy fast food burger.
Sure, everyone should pick a healthy salad... but this is America.

"Free speech" isn't the problem though? Butker has a stupid worldview, and Kaepernick was raising awareness of a real and important issue.

They can say whatever they want without retaliation from the government, and that's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not freedom from ridicule or consequences from other people.

It's not some fundamental question if rights. It's very simple: your ideas are shit, so we don't like you and think you should shut up.

I hate that stupid physics ruins this very good joke :/

Xenon and Krypton are noble gasses that are produced from fission, but I don't think they're ever the pre-guillotine input.

oleep

Make Brandon Dark Again

Better to do nothing, so we can continue living in a world where minorities aren't armed, and where racism and oppression don't happen, right?

America has a mass shooting problem. Gun control sure seems to be an effective way to stop children from being killed in schools, and caring about children being safe doesn't mean I don't care about PoC.

The whole point was that A) minorities should arm themselves, which you clearly agree with and B) that IF conservatives are scared of an armed minority population and create gun control laws (which we're all acknowledging would be intended to harm minorities), there would still be a positive effect in that children would be safer.

Agree that it's up to the individual, and that it's valid to switch from being bi to gay.

I don't really like how you pseudo-dismissed bi erasure as "a nice $2 NPR podcast phrase" though. That seems like bi erasure... erasure? And in this case we're getting a second hand account, so it's not a given that the person decided that they're gay - it's possible that they started dating another guy and OP reported that as "going gay," in which case it'd be good to mention bi erasure.

So ultimately I agree with you that "going gay" can be fine, but just wanted to say your phrasing could have been better.

Fuuuuuck yes. All the clothes that we'd otherwise ship off to other countries as trash should just be free for anyone to have. Even clothes that are ripped could be used for something, e.g. making a quilt. It's messed up to waste the effort and infrastructure that goes into making fabric, let alone a final piece of clothing.

There's further discussion in the second link where the original authors stand by their claim.

The two use different statistical methods to try to demonstrate the conclusion, and that's where the difference lies.

I'm not a big stats person, but I'm coming away feeling like the original claim is valid since a) it was shown in two different models the original author used and b) it makes intuitive sense to me.