• 2 Posts
  • 137 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 22nd, 2024

help-circle



  • If you think about it, organs that serve dual purpose for excretion and sex is disgusting. You’re doing oral where pee also comes out. Most people don’t think this is terrible because speciesm. We think possessing anus hanging over one’s face is disgusting. But if snails could talk, they would say it is disgusting to have sex where your organs also just peed.




  • I was talking about this with a friend. The younger generations got screwed over because we have to evaluate what we value more, and give up one over the other to achieve one of the life goals. I managed to save for a house; but only because I lived with my parents for many years before moving out. I don’t have a car and I haven’t gone on foreign holidays in years. Meanwhile, my friend has travelled in so many countries but he doesn’t have enough savings for a house. The boomer generation has been able to afford to live their life to the fullest with just a single household income, and didn’t have to give up any or all of their life goals, values and desires.





  • Not to defend capitalism (I would be more in favour of anarchism provided that certain conditions have to be met first), but I would say that communism only killed less because it is a newer ideology. It is only 150 years old, give or take, with it’s practical existence lasting for 76 years. If we are considering mercantilism as capitalism (both are still looking for maximising profits), then in over 300-400 hundred years it’s logical to say that capitalism killed more, by virtue of how long profit seeking has been part of human economic policies.

    And since we are talking about economic policies, barring the death camps, practically speaking, if communism went for as long as capitalism has, it could catch up with the number on death tolls, considering that communist centralisation of agriculture and ignoring experts caused similarly human-induced famines. A lot of people kinda forgot about Lysenko and his deliberate sidelining of knowledge and experience of farmers and scientists, causing poor harvest and many people starving to death. And I probably don’t need to remind everyone what Mao’s war on sparrows caused on China’s agriculture. Moreover, even after Stalin’s death and Lysenko out of the picture, USSR-- and many Soviet satellite states-- have been on ration for many years. USSR struggled to up the agricultural production in spite of being a vast country with abundant fertile lands.




  • A lot of people not just Zizek recognise that voters want to do away with neoliberalism. Zizek though was hoping that encouraging Trump to take office will make Americans mobilise and be more politically active for grassroots change, which Americans used to be good at. We are kinda seeing it now with No Kings protest and Mamdani getting Democratic primary. But on the one hand, I do admit that Zizek’s European background probably influences his narrative, because much of Europe has proportional representative government and ranked choice voting. He is kinda speaking from a high horse since his country could afford voting for third parties without practical repercussions.

    Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter if America has PR and ranked choice voting, Zizek’s point is to make Americans take more grassroots approach which they used to be good at doing. Over one hundred years ago, third parties do get substantial votes and get into house of representatives to influence the government, because people were more politically active and engaged. Reining in monopolies during the Gilded Age was successful because of people banding together and supporting candidates who support them.


  • To be honest, a lot of people including me did not expect Trump to go full fascist. His first term was described as fascist-lite at best and many wrongly thought he will continue with that approach. Of course, we were wrong and paying for it dearly.

    Going back to the main point of the discussion. Zizek may have been wrong about Trump’s fascism, but his point overall about shaking up the status quo is correct. It is wake up call for implementing actual reform and reflection. Practically it did not happen in the way that Zizek and others may have anticipated, but it is still clear that the sign of times is meant for engaging practical and reform solutions towards betterment of ordinary folks. If you talk to many conservatives and on the right, many of them actually agree that wealth inequality is a problem and don’t believe in trickle down economics. Many on the right are actually willing to vote left if the left offers tangible solutionsbto bread and butter, or kitchen table issues. As we speak, Zohran Mamdani is getting popular support for his common sense policies. AOC and Bernie Sanders are continually drawing record crowds in their national tour even in Republican states.

    This is a sign that what Zizek mentions about shaking things up by electing outsiders to prompt soul searching is working among ordinary voters, even if both Democratic and Republican party elites are not doing so because why would they.




  • Economists say Trump’s policies are detrimental to the American economy. And sure enough, his policies pissed off almost everybody, even oligarchs, when the stock market crashed in early April 2025. His big beautiful bill is gutting basic welfare and government spending. Fascism always collapses on its own because their policies are based on emotions and rejection of expert advice. Reality eventually catches up.

    America will eventually decline as superpower (all bloated empires eventually do). As we speak, China overtook US in terms of research and development spending. However, Trump’s policies and exodus of researchers makes America less competitive, which will accelerate the country’s decline as the sole hyperpower.