this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
1319 points (97.8% liked)
tumblr
6392 readers
178 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd say we're in a far worse position if we were to get a COVID-26 after everyone started openly embracing anti-science and anti-empathy thanks to the MAHA/MAGA folks.
I mean it's like certainly going to happen again, in a few years -- it insane they didn't triple whatever budget the CDC had in my opinion but yeah these people would rather die than see their favorite party lose an election. Look up Dying of Whiteness, it's literally all a big death cult.
Yeah, any rational person in charge of public policy post-CoViD would say, "Oh wow, we could've done that much better; let's shift how we're doing things."
But as usual, MAGA doubled down for propaganda purposes.
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN MAGA DOUBLED DOWN
BIDEN WAS THE FUCKING PRESIDENT FOR ALMOST THE ENTIRE PANDEMIC
SPECIFICALLY THE PART YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
Specifically we're talking about when trump gutted the cdc
Exactly.
I don't know why SinAdjetivos felt the need to Whataboutism/"both sides" this issue; it's clearly a concerted effort from MAGA to undermine science literacy for various reasons.
You can tell they're not arguing in good faith because they equivocated MAGA to anyone (including Bill Clinton) saying they want to make America great again, which is obviously not the same thing.
If someone says they want to make America great again by instituting economic reforms like FDR, they are very obviously not MAGA.
I know you mean this as sarcasm, but not only was Biden the president for the majority of the pandemic, there was a democratic supermajority.
It wasn't just MAGA doubling down. It's a concerted doubling down from nearly every major institution and demographic. It's easy to blame MAGA, but it's plainly obvious that the problem lies much deeper.
MAGA is leading the charge I mentioned. You can try to blame the apathetic and confused all you want, but they're not the ring leaders.
"Make America Great Again" was a line that Bill Clinton loved to use as well.
If by "MAGA" you mean socioeconomic elites with strong ties to projects like the heritage foundation and frequent fliers at destinations like Epstein's island then I'm 100% in agreement!
Obamacare was architechted by the heritage foundation.
Jim Crow Joe had a supermajority during the pandemic, did nothing and declared the pandemic "over" right before the deadliest wave. Voiced his true feelings when he said "you aint black!" If you don't support him. Achieved his careerlong ambition of overturning Roe V Wade but didn't quite manage to kill Medicare/Medicaid which was his real personal pet project.
I don't blame you for being confused and you clearly aren't apathetic, but you need to get informed otherwise you will continue to focus on the "scary" monster while the real enemy continues to flank.
In other words, "both sides?"
One party is demonstrably worse. The other is failing to oppose them sufficiently.
Their sins are far from equal as you anecdotally suggest.
The "good cop" is trying to fuck you over just as much as the "bad cop".
So yes, bOTh SidES are allied with eachother against you and I. The sins cannot be compared against eachother because they are shared.
Nah, eating poop is way worse than smelling it.
You're vastly oversimplifying to fit whatever your hidden agenda is and I don't care to dig through your profile to find out what that might be.
I am asking you to stop rolling in the poop!
Good for you on not eating it, but please recognize the pigsty you're rolling around in.
I get it, you're a "third parties in the US have a decent chance of winning if you just throw your vote away and help Donald Trump win" kind of person.
Oh, I'm much worse! I'm a 'your "democracy" is a sham and things will continue to deteriorate until you understand and start acting like it' kind of person.
Oh so encouraging American voter apathy is the fix?
Sure, buddy.
You're the one who's encouraging apathy. If you want people to come to your party then the bare minimum you need is that it can't smell like shit, much less be a pigsty that everyone who shows up is forced to roll around in.
"Voter apathy" isn't the problem. I'm certainly not apathetic, but you seem to be when it comes to the shit you're rolling in. Again, I'm proud of you for not eating it but that's not that much of an improvement.
What you're missing is that politics is compromise, by definition.
I don't like that the Democrats don't align with my beliefs perfectly, but I'd rather vote against Trump than whine about the Democrats not being perfect and stay home, which is what a massive portion of American voters did, thanks in large part to the "Why bother when the Democrats are just as bad?" messaging that is completely a PsyOp that helps Trump whether you're doing it on purpose or not.
What compromise?!?!? Your "vote blue no matter how many people it hurts/kills" is the reason why the "reactionary right" has the base that it does.
Your politic of appeasement does not end well. You cannot compromise with reality.
Where do you draw the line? At what point are the Democrats too compromised even for you? Genocide abroad and concentration camps at your locale clearly aren't enough.
Never said that
No it isn't
The right has its base because they know they can be increasingly extreme and their supporters will still fall in line while the left will purity test everyone to no end, driving voter apathy and infighting.
Where do you draw the line?
The minute a D is, on balance, worse than an R, I would vote against them (i.e. for the R).
If the Rs are enthusiastic about supporting genocide and the Ds are toying with going against it? I'll vote D.
If the Rs are enthusiastic about depriving minorities of their rights and the Ds are meekly speaking out against it? I'll vote D.
etc. etc.
see a terrible opinion
look inside
.ml
look at posting history
"actually russia is anti-imperialist, western propaganda etc etc"
russia is anti-imperialist and irredentist.
they aid countries like cuba against the imperialist blockade (anti-imperialism), and they also conquer land from ukraine (irredentism)
of course you're going to completely reject this cus of my instance, but anyway
i do not support the russian invasion of ukraine btw
If an imperialist nation opposes an imperialist nation (to serve their own imperialist goals), neither can be realistically labeled anti-imperialist.
what imperialist goals does russia have
Irredentism, for one. You taught me that word so I'm surprised you already forgot it.
irredentism doesn't make a country imperialist
i don't think you would call south or north korea imperialist or well i'm not too sure at this point
I would say it does, by definition.
If you count North Korea and South Korea as different countries, I would argue North Korea is definitely imperialist and South Korea could be considered imperialist. Russia is absolutely imperialist:
"Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power and soft power."
"Irredentism is one state's desire to annex the territory of another state. This desire can be motivated by ethnic reasons because the population of the territory is ethnically similar to or the same as the population of the parent state."
How are you defining the terms?
why is north korea imperialist in your opinion?
"employing both hard power and soft power". russia only uses military might (hard power)
i'd say modern imperialism is much more complex than grabbing land (irredentism). for example, the best example of imperialism, the US, has tied european defense to the US via nato. if their european vassals don't buy enough weapons from them or are about to buy weapons from the wrong country, they get heavily punished economically (terminating trade deals, tariffs, threats etc.)
a lot of european NATO and other vassal countries weapon systems are tied to the US so it's likely that they could just shut down my home country's air force by pressing a button, if we switched over to politics they don't like.
our (finland) voting systems, e-authentications, healthcare systems are being moved to the US cloud. this gives america leverage to basically shut our country down if we ever go against their politics. from what i've heard, microsoft's services are spreading like a cancer despite this being the homeland of linux.
i saw a news article that claimed that the biggest american companies control like 60% of the internet's traffic. the americans could initiate a disaster to any "western" country if they wished by cutting them off.
this is what modern imperalism looks like.
now take anti-imperialist countries like russia or china. they would sell all kinds of things (including weapons) to satan if he treated them fairly. they have their own internet services, they don't give a fuck. they don't push them to anyone else to make them conform to their political ideals by holding the wire cutter. this is what makes the difference.
that being said, irredentism is still awful. i'm ideologically against all forms of killing, and that includes the russian attack on ukraine. just so we're clear here, this is just about definitions, i'm not trying to argue that russia attacking its neighbors is good in any way.
Because they aspire to (and occasionally have proven to) fit the widely-accepted definition described above.
Why isn't it, in your opinion?
Your comment carves out your own pet definition, asserting that financial dependency equates to people getting bombed. While not ideal, it's far from comparable.
If you define words like "imperialism" however you want, of course you can craft perfect boxes to fit countries you don't like but exclude countries you do like. You're just piggybacking off a word you know people don't like.
As I said above, both of those countries are very obviously imperialist, and opposing another imperialist country does not make them anti-imperialist.
Just say "Russia are The Good Guys and the USA are The Bad Guys" and you will be speaking from your heart instead of redefining terms to propagandize.
Here, I'll bootstrap some empathy for you:
If I personally feel like "murderer" should mean "someone who thinks Russia and China are anti-imperialist," does that mean it makes sense to call you a murderer? Or is that an inherently dishonest form of communication, and starting off a conversation calling you a murderer without clarifying I'm using a secret non-standard definition is ridiculous?
damn, i put in effort to make a long reply cus i thought u were ready to discuss this in good faith but then u hit me with this ._.
alright then, have a nice day...
Likewise, frankly. To a propagandized person, everything reasonable seems like insanity.
It's either that or you see the obvious flaw in your logic and pulled the eject handle because you couldn't respond.
I don't know you so I don't know which it is.
I just hope if it's the former, and you meant to be participating in good faith, that you realize that the definition of "imperialist" absolutely applies to NK, SK, Russia, and China. You're doing mental gymnastics if you think or claim that's not the case.
You can start out at "they're imperialist but it's okay" if you want, but anything else is just factually wrong.
obama reduced the blockade against cuba
is obama anti-imperialist
no