1
66
NK Bans Corn Dogs - Saw This on/r/worldnews
(www.nzherald.co.nz)
3
73
"Now we just need to add a clause to the contract to exclude communists and we'll be good to go"
Apologies if this is the wrong comm, I'm a little confused with the changes still.
Collectivizing some takes from comrades for some counterpropaganda:
- The paradox of tolerance is a semantic fallacy — tolerance = socially progressive, not pain tolerance: "
Oh, you're a tolerant person? Tolerate this then! punches you in the face". To put it another way, tolerating other people (the bare minimum!) is different from tolerance for concepts. Parenti addresses this in The Culture Struggle:
The reason for respecting other cultures is to avoid doing harm to the people who live in them. But what if certain practices within the culture itself harm segments of the population? What claim, then, does the culture have to being above judgment? In South Africa, for instance, police are frequently dispatched to investigate muti killings, murders committed in order to present a traditional priest with a severed hand or genitals or heart so [gender] can cure a disease or bring some business gain to a supplicant. 51 South African authorities seem to have zero tolerance for this sacred aspect of indigenous culture. Presumably so would the murder victims had they been given a say in the matter.
- The tolerance paradox only exists if you see tolerance as some logic puzzle rule and not a practical outcome for the lives of the marginalized. As this post pointed out, tolerating "all political parties" when some are openly trying to cause harm to others (e.g. actual Nazis) isn't more inclusive. Unlike actually marginalized groups, political views are, while also a product of your environment, at least something you have control over. In case you think this is just a point of theory, this has harmed trans people previously, for instance.
Consequently, the so-called "paradox of tolerance" can often ironically be used to argue for intolerance.
We don't need a society where all viewpoints are tolerated. Even well-intended ones often shouldn't be, as Mao famously put it:
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
4
147
5
41
6
135
Dems reinvent literacy tests.
(hexbear.net)
Presented as a means for assessing whether voters were educated enough to vote, literacy tests and other methods were designed for a single purpose: to stop Black Americans from voting.
During the Reconstruction period that followed the war, enfranchised Black men gave Ulysses S. Grant his narrow victory in the popular vote. Before that period ended, 2,000 Black Americans would be elected to office in the South.
But by the dawn of the 20th century, all the progress that was made to expand the rights of formerly enslaved Black Americans was severely crippled by the institution of state-specific voting laws that were designed to exclude Black voters from the ballot box. Southern states created elaborate voter registration procedures or “voting literacy tests” that determined whether the voter in question was literate enough to cast their ballot.
Of course, these voting literacy tests were administered largely to voters of color and were scored by biased judges. The tests were intentionally confusing and difficult and one wrong answer meant a failing grade. Even Black voters with college degrees were given failing scores.
In the mid-1960s, a professor of law at Duke University, William W. Van Alstyne, conducted an experiment in which he submitted four questions found on the Alabama voter’s literacy test to “all professors currently teaching constitutional law in American law schools.”
Alstyne’s professors were told to answer all submitted questions without the aid of any external reference, just as any voter would be required to do when presented with the test. Ninety-six respondents sent Alstyne their answers; 70 percent of the answers given to him were incorrect.
As Alstyne had demonstrated, passing a voting literacy test was virtually impossible. The questions were intentionally written to confuse the reader, and one wrong answer would result in automatic failure.
7
135
Hey y’all did you know that Linux can’t count votes from multiple parties? I think I remember Torvalds talking about that somewhere.
These people are using technobabble to justify disputing their gigantic loss rather than laying the blame at the feet of the people who actually lost.
9
77
What is Treatlerism?
(hexbear.net)
If you follow comrade @posting_forever on Twitter, she has been out there banging the drum about Treatlerism for a while. She says it has origins in Matt Christman's ideas on the role of treats in the imperial core.
I would define it as the open endorsement of imperial violence to ensure the continued flow of treats. This thread is a perfect exemplar of this attitude: https://xcancel.com/DrVirgo1981/status/1854527156589658382
It's not a new phenomenon, but as material conditions deteriorate, it will become a much more marked tendency
I have prepared a selection of its more disgusting replies for you below, but the whole thread is a bunch of Hitlers saying "exaaaaacctlllltyyyyyy" to each other.
counterpropaganda
199 readers
1 users here now
Place for vicious takedowns of capitalist propaganda.
Rules:
Rule 1: Posts must be primarily about capitalist propaganda.
Rule 2: Posts must refute the capitalist propaganda included within.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS