
post
I never understood why they ended USAID. It has been such a fantastic tool for destabilizing non-allies, so democrats and republicans alike should love it. And aside from that, it also did some actual good stuff like medical aid, so even progressives like it. It seems like such a win win, yet here we are. Is it just incompetence?
They want brown people to die.
Yeah, and destabilizing regions with brown people in them is a very effective way of doing that, hence my confusion.
The right ended USAID because the right hates the thought of helping others
They quite literally CANNOT compute empathy, they're narcissistic apes who only care about themselves
The GOP was putting out a lot of bullshit about how the US spends so much money on other countries and doesn't help people at home to get votes for a long time. Eventually some people that actually believed the bullshit got into power and killed it.
Really USAID was about soft power. The US provides aid and that allowed the US the threaten to cut off aid if a country didn't go along with US interests. Way cheaper than threatening to use military force to get your way.
USAID had a lot of problems and definitely could've been made a lot more efficient. But eliminating it was a stupid move.
In many places China stepped in when USAID was gone. Not because of altruism but because China wants that soft power the US abandoned.
Yes, it was incompetence.
The obsession with hard power is their undoing. If your only means of coercion is shoving a gun against their head, it makes it very, very easy for the coerced to say 'fuck off' and ally themselves with your enemies. Chinese soft power is something that the USSR only dreamed of having but could never achieve.
The destruction of USAID killed around 60,000 people in just a few months and could kill over 30 million over the course of several years due to the lack of basic (and extremely cheap) care.
As far as I am concerned, any bitching they claimed about the death toll of communism needs to be shut down with simply that.
I can assure you, I feel no empathy towards you Elon Musk.
The fundamental problem of all civilization is not hanging billionaires.
We don't have to hang them, just put a wealth tax on them before they become billionaires.
But for anyone who has a billion I think it's OK to take it all, because nobody should be so selfish so they have more than a billion.
The problem is hierarchies. The entire point of feudalism was to create a caste system where the ruler of each segment won't be touched by the people below them. That's exactly what modern society by and large looks like.
Until everyone's equal, no one is. Hierarchical systems are antithetical to peace and equality.
I'd really rather hang them though...
Its certainly simpler, though hardly a solution. There's always more billionaires unless you change the system that created them.
Tax.
Its not complicated. It might take a few goes to get it just right but what we have now is pathetic.
I agree, but also..There are famously ways to avoid taxes. You need a backup plan when taxation doesn't work. And remember, once someone becomes trully wealthy, they're above the law.
Tax them, give them a choice, and if they chooseβ¦poorly, then hang them.
I bet you if ceos start erm, falling down due to high speed objects that may affect brain functions , things get changed fast
I'm definitely for a change of the system too, but in the meantime there always more rope too.
I won't stand in your way. I am in principle against death penalty, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs.
I'm fundamentally against death penalty, but in the case of Billionaires I believe we can and must do without whatever genetic or psicological traits they carry. We simply can't afford that level of selfishness to survive as a species.
They'd rather poison the earth and make it uninhabitable than being constrained in any way or form.
Yeah they think theyβre so great and untouchable. Let them find out theyβre mortal and fallible.
It's the same kind of "simple solution", i.e. eradication of your enemies which the radical right Nazi fucks love so much. I hope that's some food for thought, but you don't seem particularly hungry for that.
That signature American bloodthirst seems to be up your alley though.
That signature American bloodthirst
Ah, yes, because it was clearly Americans that perpetrated the French and Bolshevik revolutions
The thing is that we already have a lot of billionaires. We do not to get rid of those before preventing more being created, because they are not going to give up being billionaires voluntarily.
More and more I'm thinking we really need a wealth tax. Not because the government needs the money - the government literally makes their own money, they can create as much of it as they want - but because I think a cap on wealth is necessary for social cohesion. Plus, once people get over a certain level of wealth, the chances of it seriously negatively affecting them psychologically seem to go up considerably. Many, if not most, billionaires are just weird, creepy, disturbed wackos. I don't think it's good for them or for society.
I certainly wouldn't be opposed to capping individual wealth at $999 million. Another option might be to set the maximum at a percentage of GDP, maybe something like 0.01% of GDP. I think that would put the cap at just over $3 billion. That's still an astronomical amount of money, and there would still be billionaires but not the mega, stupid billionaires.
a cap on wealth is necessary for social cohesion.
Billionaires are undermining democracy, which already is a huge problem and against the values of a country that wants to be democratic.
Yes most billionaires end up wackos, which makes it even worse that they have so much power.
IMO you can add an extra zero to the decimal places to make it 300 million. 1 billion is IMO already to much.
But I wouldn't make it a hard limit, just incrementally bigger tax percentage the higher you get.
IMO you can add an extra zero to the decimal places to make it 300 million.
Sounds good to me.
I wouldn't make it a hard limit, just incrementally bigger tax percentage the higher you get
That's a fun idea. Like yeah it's possible for you to become the first trillionaire, but you'll be getting taxed at 99.999%. It almost encourages innovation, in a way, because now billionaires have to figure out how to keep all that money despite incredible taxation. Only the people with truly novel, math-bending ways of generating value would be able to be that wealthy (or perhaps more likely, just people exploiting loopholes I haven't thought of...)
More and more I'm thinking we really need a wealth tax. Not because the government needs the money - the government literally makes their own money, they can create as much of it as they want - but because I think a cap on wealth is necessary for social cohesion.
This is literally what the inheritance tax is for, so there's precedent.
Of course, they piss and moan about that too, but I don't give a shit and neither should anyone else.
No, it has to be much lower than that. People need to feel like that kind of wealth is utterly unobtainable and shameful.
Even $1,000,000,001 is too much. I'd probably cap it somewhere closer to $10m, if we have to use money.
We have so much stigma around being poor. I would probably cry myself to death out of joy if I woke up in a world where people felt shame for hoarding wealth.
There was this British yt speaking about the societal changes and she said "rich people invented homelessness and they've been mad about it ever since". Back in the medieval Times, humility was a virtue and priests made vows of poverty.
I fully believe that empathy and compassion are evolutionary traits.
They are. Humans are social creatures, the survival of our species depended on the success of group work. A single human can't survive on their own, and so you need to be a part of a collective that's organized by a social hierarchy that divides people up into small roles achievable by individuals. In the primitive days of our species, all the tasks were dangerous and difficult, and so we evolved empathy as a way to minimize losses and ensure maximum cooperation. If our ancestors didn't have empathy or compassion, we would've died out a long time ago because nobody would've stepped in take care of the injured, elderly, young children, or women during child labor.
And that for one to become a billionair, one must be completely lacking empathy and compassion.
I would agree (not an evolutionary biologist). Game theory at the end of the day Β―β \β _β (β γβ )β _β /β Β―
Aferican painted dogs prop up the weak in their pack and are one of the most successful hunters on the planet.
It's present in numerous species. It's a very useful survival trait.
The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is whatever let people like Musk attain great wealth and a platform, despite their incredible bias and incompetence.
I feel like people with the "kindness is weak! Dog eat dog" attitude have this distorted vision of human nature where if you removed all of the societal constraints, people would just start opportunistically killing each other. Empathy is the reason we didn't go extinct at the peak of the afro/eurasian bottleneck when we numbered less than 2,000 individuals. Sure, we find neolithic mass graves with skulls piled upon skulls. Cracked limbs, gnawed bones, maimed hands, you name it. All kinds of cruelty.
But if human nature is entirely self-serving, why do we find evidence of aincent surgeries? Of healed femur marrow, removed parasites, and makeshift stints? Why do we see marked burial sites made for individuals who aren't necessarily even related? Wouldn't it serve you better to let your competitors die? Empathy was * literally* a prerequisite for the emergence of civilization. It was "let's stick together, and make a better future for everyone" not "hey, let's fly this guy to Mars so he doesn't die"
But you know what. I'm sure the hebephilic misanthrope will do a wonderful job improving the human condition with AI generated child pornography, and over priced cars.
Empathy is the reason we didn't go extinct at the peak of the afro/eurasian bottleneck when we numbered less than 2,000 individuals.
True, but it'll the current manosphere chud-driven narrative around this it's also worth mentioning that empathy is not itself an emotion. It may result in an emotional response, but empathy itself is an cognitive process through which one person considers the perspective and emotions of another. Consciously turning off your empathy literally just makes you dumber and less rational.
You see this all the time with prominent Republicans who suddenly become pro-gay rights as soon as their own kids come out. Bruh, gay people didn't suddenly start deserving rights just because your kid happens to be gay, so you were either being irrational before or you're being irrational now. The cognitive process by which you could have avoided irrationality was by engaging in empathy - consider the perspectives and feelings of others, consider how and why they come about, and incorporate that into your thinking.
I thought VA regularly makes life hard for soldiers?
Yes, if you know anyone in the military, the best possible thing you can tell them is get your disability rating BEFORE you get out. If anyone tells you it's fine to wait or they'll help you after you get out or whatever, holy shit ignore them.
If they say "But I don't have any disability", tell them "Yes you do."
USians are so disconnected from the whole world they think this is a wholesome comic
There will always be people like you who will always find something to complain about. This comic is clearly not meant to appease you. I doubt anything remotely positive about America will. This comic is meant to remind Americans that country's strength comes from it's soft power, and empathy driven soft power is not a weakness like idiots like Rogan and Musk seem to think. Americans need to reject this mentality and strive for greater empathy in their society, not less.
The shut the hell up lmao. Your whining has absolutely no value because you have no interest in seeing America get better, you just want to indulge in your wet dreams about it burning down. This conversation isn't for you, so just stay on the sidelines and seethe your heart out.
Hitler believes that compassion was weakness and a crime against nature. Sound familiar?
Ah yes, the overflowing empathy of the military.
Right, and this is Lemmy. I am not sure this is exactly the facebook browsing demographic.
people who have a vision, even if delusional, for a better America.
Knowing the perspective of american liberals is perfectly fine and normal, but that's not a call to cater to delusion. Delusional visions are not helping.
I wouldn't use the word 'delusion' then. Delusions are predicated on defying incontrovertible proof of falsehood.
They are a defense mechanism. The desire to be deluded is a fear response. Knowing you're dealing with fear is one thing, but I think this has to be treated more like addiction intervention than some kind of puppet mastery.
This comic is show individual solders who can be pretty diverse. I know a few combat vets who ended up being good people.
A comic doesn't show individuals, it shows a vision of the world. If I draw 1000 nice soldiers, it's not a 1000 individuals, I'm pushing the vibe that soldiers are nice.
But the nice ones are the exception, so if you specifically show nice ones (is it possi le to be nice while killing people?), it is a choice to represent reality as such.
Things like that convey a message, and let's face it, I doubt that the author of this comic is anti-military.
It is possible to be nice and kill people. Killing people stopped the nazis and freed slaves. Violence is not inherently good or bad its just a tool.
The US military finished killing Nazis in 1945. So that's a good 80 years they've spent killing for evil.
You can say that murder is bad. You can also say that it is necessary.
Allowing murder to be good is allowing opinions to shift reality, and this is how people supporting Trump can think that murder is generally wrong, but murdering trans or black people or leftists is acceptable. Once you start making exceptions based on opinions, everything unfolds.
The strip stops working when it shows Joe Rogan with a surprised face instead of mindlessly agreeing with whatever corporate grifter he has in front of him at any given moment.
Joe Rogan always has a surprised face. Heβs just totally clueless all the time. Thatβs why heβs so gullible.
People are slamming this cartoon, but it is highlighting the past foreign policy stance of displaying Soft Power, which is a positive long-term objective to help rehabilitate America's image as militaristic.
But these dumb MAGA Apes think that's for pussies, and it's more fun to beat others into submission, undoing decades of any positive forward progress.
One of the reasons that the rest of the world hates us is because while we claim that we aren't all really as bad as MAGA, it rings hollow because we didn't do anything to avoid the MAGA threat a second time. Imagine what we would have thought if they had let Hitler escape punishment, and then regain power a few years later? Right now, that's what we look like to the rest of the world, and rightfully so.
If we ever want to restore any respect to this country, we will have to deal with MAGA decisively before this can be over. The rest of the world, and our own country, needs that.
You're like the only person in the comments who understand something this basic. Props to you
That is a concept I struggle with, although I totally agree with you. But how do eliminate MAGA without resorting to fascism yourself? To be clear, MAGA needs to be eliminated. Just donβt know how.
Tolerance is a social contract. Those who would not grant it to others are not protected by it.
We don't have to tolerate the intolerant.
They are a proven, unapologetic, and ongoing National Security Threat, who have openly, demonstrably engaged in treason, sedition, insurrection, terrorism, extortion, espionage, corruption, pedophilia, murder, and more. We have all seen numerous examples of every one of those crimes.
All politicians take an oath to protect America from national security threats, foreign or domestic, and MAGA definitely falls under the category of domestic threat. Why shouldn't an organization like that be prohibited from existing, recruiting, and promoting?
I donβt disagree. But I am talking about the millions of mouth breathers that lap up everything that guy spills. The voters. Do we just round βem up?
Reconstruction is going to be painful.
MAGA thrives because there's nothing in place to hold them accountable.
These people only understand violence and intimidation. Things like institutional power and limits mean nothing to them. This is why they ignore the courts, the constitution, the law, international organizations, national agencies, and so on. To them, democracy, rule of law, checks and balances aren't principles to live by and uphold, to them they're obstacles to absolute power. That's why they seethe when an institution works as intended and cheer when they get a corrupt one to manipulate.
If we had true accountability, they would never see the light of day. Opposition in a democracy is a chain that goes from the bottom, and all the links need to work together as one. It goes something like this:
- It starts with the people. The people need to believe in democracy in order to act, because democracy doesn't work when people aren't actively involved in government.
- When the people are involved, they need to create groups that organize resistance movements. These movements need to be very principled, have specific demands, and have specific targets/goals in order to mobilize people.
- Once the people are mobilized, they carry out strikes, protests, demonstrations, and other acts of civil disobedience in order to apply pressure on the media and other NGOs as well as local and state politicians to act on their behalf.
- The local and state politicians on board will then apply pressure on their national representatives, and the ones that don't will be voted out and replaced. Same for goes for media and other orgs, if they're not on board then they will be boycotted.
- Likewise, the national representatives on board will apply pressure on their colleagues to act, and the ones who don't need to be replaced.
- Once you have a majority of the national representatives feeling genuine fear of losing their jobs or otherwise from the public, then they will start acting accordingly in order to save their own asses. They will turn to the law, the courts, institutions, and checks balances to do their jobs.
During every step, it is absolutely crucial that standards are clearly defined and upheld. If the people see bad actors in their midst, they need to call them out. If one of their own commits a crime, then they need to be condemned and kicked out. If a local, state, or national politician is defying the people, they need to be voted out. If they broke the law then they need to face consequences. If they defy the law, then the people needs to send those specific individuals a message that they are not untouchable. That's how democracy is supposed to work. Each generations has to actively work to defend it and ensure that the next generation does the same.
So when the next time a MAGA like group forms and tries to take power, they're shutdown at every avenue. They're rejected by the people, the opposition, the states, the courts, the media, non profits, celebrities, and even their own party. Anyone who endorses such groups needs to ostracized and the leaders of the next MAGA like group need to be jailed if they attempt to undermine democracy or the law.
This what needs to happen now, but unfortunately the people just don't care. Society's apathy is what sleep walked us into fascism, and we need to wake up if we want to get rid of it.

top 96 comments