Poltifact: “Mostly false”

Not the most evil bastard in history, but I think the world would be a vastly different and better place if Klemens von Metternich died young.

he did.

*organized labor forced him to do.

You might dig No Joy, Lush, Cindy Lee, the Cocteau Twins and My Bloody Valentine

What the hell is shoegaze, anyway?

Ask four different people and you’ll get four different answers, but the term first started to get thrown at bands as an insult around the late 80s in the UK because guitarists in certain alternative bands would be using so many different effects during their performances they’d spend the whole show staring at their pedalboards (I think a review of a My Bloody Valentine show in particular is where the term got coined)

The sad part is this is how people in the DNC must actually think to give these assholes speaking time at their convention when the only commendable thing they ever did was admit to making a mistake most Americans were smart enough to not make in the first place

deleted by creator

Yeah, I’m not a Texan but I also disagree about this. Also, Austin has produced some amazing music over the years (for example, random Austin band I’ve been in love with recently is Being Dead).

When pressed about what it would take for him to endorse the Vice President, Sanders emphasized the importance of the upcoming campaign, highlighting critical issues such as climate change and economic rights. “We have to make sure that we elect the Vice President.”

[Bolding added]

I’d have to listen to it in context, but that sounds and awful lot like and endorsement for all intents and purposes

A mediocre politician from a gerrymandered district thinks someone else got an unfair advantage? That’s cute.

Also, I’d be amazed if they didn’t have a way to get contact information from non-political sources. Like, off the top of my head - if I’m running a Dem campaign I’d be talking to every car dealership I could and seeing if I can buy their list of people who signed up for updates on EV availability to see if I can turn some of those people to donors, and I’m pretty certain there’s no laws or regulations that would stop them from doing that.

Lol, yeah, I’m really good at being nuanced and understanding right up until somebody starts talking about a person or subject that hits one of my angry buttons, and then I’m all “Bill Clinton will pay for his many crimes when the revolutionary vanguard takes power!”

But, yeah, when I’m not pissed beyond reason the thought I keep coming back to is that we all need each other to keep fascism at bay

Yeah, say what you will about free market acolytes, they know how to jump on to a successful brand

I already dropped one wall of text on this post, but something you might find interesting - there was a history podcast called Revolutions that looked at revolutionary periods in history, when it wrapped up the host did a whole series of appendix episodes on different recurring themes he saw in the different periods he looked at, and in one of those he talked about how the word “radical” can be hard to define because throughout history there were people who had radical goals they wanted to achieve through moderate means and people who had moderate goals they wanted to achieve through radical means and the inverse of both of those

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=0nukt_9HmLE&t=2m21s

So yeah, I think it’s helpful to separate out how big a transformation in society you want to see from how far you’re willing to go to get them

So, this is a very complex topic I don’t have the time to give the treatment it deserves, but to try to give a very summarized historical viewpoint on it -

Liberalism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 18th century as a reaction to monarchism that emphasized universal civil rights and free markets (there were a ton of weird things going on with noble privileges and state monopolies issued by royal administrations and mercantile economics this was a response to)

Socialism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 19th century as a reaction to liberalism (and the whole industrial revolution) that said universal civil rights didn’t go far enough and we needed to establish universal economic rights. Some socialists think the only way to achieve these things is by overthrowing or limiting the power of governments and ripping up contracts between private parties, which liberals tend not to like.

Progressivism was (sort of, I’m being very reductive here) an attempted synthesis of these traditions that cohered around the early 20th century, and (essentially) argued “ok, free markets but restricted by regulations (e.g. you can’t sell snake oil, you can’t condition the sale of property on the purchaser being a specific race), and open elections for whoever the voters want but with restrictions on the kinda of laws that can be passed” (e.g. no poll taxes).

Like I said, I’m simplifying a lot here and I’d encourage reading Wikipedia pages and other sources on all of these things (like, I’m eliding a whole very dark history progressives have where their attempts to perfect society had them advocating for eugenics and segregation early on because there was academic support for those ideas at the time, and there’s a lot more to be said on how a lot of the first anti-racist voices were socialist ones and why it took progressives and liberals time to get on the right side of that issue, and how fights for colonial independence tended to be led by socialists and against liberals), but the fact that liberals progressives and socialists are all ostensibly “on the left” is a big cause of the infighting we see.

I mean, academically speaking you’re totally right, but because Americans discuss politics in extremely simplistic terms a lot of people use the word “liberal” when they mean progressive or socialist or just anything to the left of center, so it would probably be helpful to define these terms a bit

NATOpedia

About that source,

The Grayzone has downplayed or denied the Chinese government’s human rights abuses against Uyghurs, published conspiracy theories about Xinjiang, Syria, and other regions, and published disinformation about Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some have described as pro-Russian propaganda. Grayzone staff Blumenthal and Aaron Maté acted as briefers on behalf of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations at UN meetings organized by Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone?wprov=sfla1

First off, you should really source what you’re talking about, secondly it does seem to be entirely irrelevant to this story, but third, unlike the information DOD contractors were spreading in this story, that does appear to be a more or less accurate summary of what happened there.

I did link the article, it’s the top level link of this whole post. Might be an app or instance issue keeping some people from seeing it I guess, so I’ll add it to the body of this post when I get a chance.

Second,

and then he publicly banned the practice

[Italicization added]

That’s incorrect, the public did not know about this program until Reuters reported on it here (which is why this is news). His administration privately told them to stop this specific campaign, but

After Reuters asked X about the accounts, the social media company removed the profiles, determining they were part of a coordinated bot campaign based on activity patterns and internal data.

and

Nevertheless, the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. In an unclassified strategy document last year, top Pentagon generals wrote that the U.S. military could undermine adversaries such as China and Russia using “disinformation spread across social media, false narratives disguised as news, and similar subversive activities [to] weaken societal trust by undermining the foundations of government.”

And in February, the contractor that worked on the anti-vax campaign – General Dynamics IT – won a $493 million contract. Its mission: to continue providing clandestine influence services for the military.

So, the accounts were still active and the posts were still visible until Reuters got involved, and the people who greenlit what should have been an obviously bad idea (anti-vaccine propaganda efforts) are continuing to work for our government.

Stopping anti-vaccine propaganda efforts was a good thing, but it was the absolute least Biden could do and wholly insufficient. These posts/accounts should have been publicly disowned and discredited, and the people responsible for them should have been prohibited from doing any further work for the US. Not doing so is a massive blow to our international credibility, which is like the last fucking thing democracy needs right now.

e; part of what I originally wrote seemed pretty irrelevant on second thought, so I deleted it to make it a bit less of a wall of text, but originally in between “Second,” and “>and then he etc.” was

the Biden Admin was made aware of this not long after he entered office

That’s not totally clear (party nominees start getting briefed on some classified things before the election to get them up to speed), but does seem to be the case given what we know now.

[Indent added for clarity]

Maybe they will try to take control of the courts first

Also, the UK isn’t a republic