NoTagBacks

Well, something does trickle down, it's just not money/wealth...

Lemmygrad: claims to be anti-imperialist Also Lemmygrad: supports Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hmmmmm...

Eh, I dunno that I'd actually characterize him as a liberal so much as him being an authoritarian that just pushed whatever happened to serve him at any point. Kinda in the same vein of fascists not having any economic ideology, just whatever serves their ideal of the state at any given moment. So yeah, I certainly agree with your sentiment that Stalin certainly was not a communist, but more because he only cared about gaining/maintaining power rather than actually subscribing to any economic theory.

No, it's really not the same thing. You can legislate better schools with a variety of methods, the main point being that you're regulating government jobs(to oversimplify). You're more limited to negative legislation for parents, such as punishing child abuse. I guess you could technically legislate certain mandates for parents to be better parents, but like, good luck passing said legislation. And even if you do(and this is the big boi), how the fuck do you enforce that??? And on top of even that, how can you be sure parents will be qualified/able to teach their kids such a wide variety of skills? You can fire teachers for incompetence and publicly investigate school districts for failing to faithfully implement good practice. And it should also be mentioned that shifting these expectations (especially via legislation) onto parents will disproportionately burden the poor who will be less likely to have the time, skills, or knowledge to teach said things.

Man, I wholeheartedly agree with the premise that Rome just simply had the capacity to lose. I think it may even be the largest contributing factor to the long decline of the empire. Kinda hard to maintain that capacity when it's all being spent on plagues and civil wars.

As a man who loves Roman history a bit too much who is also very much so a leftist, it's aggravating trying to get into discussions or communities about Rome without things taking a fashy turn at some point. It's almost like being a Star Wars fan... sigh.

But yeah, great to see this take affirmed here.

... that restaurant?

I'm struggling with answering this question. I mean, obviously, I don't know. I could give an opinion on what I think is most likely to happen, but what does it matter? Like, legitimately, what does it matter? And I do mean it earnestly, what would it matter even if I just so happened to be right about my speculation?

We all certainly hope that 2025 will be better. But I think the important thing to remember is that 2025 being better is possible. In fact, I used to be a homophobic ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian bigot. In my remorse over the person I used to be, I noticed I felt shame rather than self-righteousness over my condemnation of people just being who they are. In my longing to undo the evil I committed in the past, I realized I have the opportunity to fight for good, even if it means fighting what feels like my own reflection. I got better. I still have a ways to go and even more internalized prejudice I need to demolish, but at least I know getting better is possible, because I did it before goddammit. And if a dickhead like me can be better, can't we all?

And even if things just turn to absolute shit, I know I can at least make my tiny corner of the world a little bit brighter if I can make myself better. And you know what? I think it's good enough for me to know that I can start doing something about that right now. Afterall, as Marcus Aurelius would say to himself; It is up to you!

As a preface, I absolutely agree that the parents here are very likely to be wrong in that it seems like they were ideologically opposed to their son's identity.

HOWEVER. I find it difficult to trust the validity and/or truth in the details given about this particular story as the article and title are both blatantly biased. On top of that, the claims made about the intentions and motivations of others are aggressively ignorant and just insanely unhelpful. You want people to double down on transphobia? Tell them they're a terrible person and they're only transphobic because _____. I get it, conservatives, Christians, etc should respect Trans people and their autonomy, but it's better for literally everyone to find the best way to reach these people in a way they'd actually be receptive to, rather than trashing and dehumanizing them as monsters. If they're conservatives, it shouldn't be surprising when they act like it. We should also recognize that they're people who are capable of learning to be better.

I used to be homophobic. I was a fairly conservative Christian back in the day and the justification came via biblical principles. I didn't learn to be better by being characterized as "he only hates gay people because he's secretly gay himself" or "he just wants to control what other people do in the bedroom", but rather by actually engaging my own rationalizations. I would have rejected the premise that I hated anyone who was homosexual, so any rhetoric that mirrors the dishonesty of this article would have been a non-starter. In fact, it would have seemed to me that there were no legitimate arguments to be made against my position, so I would have felt more justified with the given approach above. Being in a few opposing positions on the topic, I never believed that my concurrent position was morally wrong, even though I would strongly submit today that my position before as a conservative Christian absolutely was immoral and extremely uninformed. The takeaway I'm trying to emphasize is that going on the offensive for any such position is not only ridiculous, but very counterproductive.

While I understand the frustration with what this article appears to portray, the added dishonesty is harmful in that we're dehumanizing two parents who probably legitimately believe what they are doing is justified and moral. Attacking them would make them double down on their beliefs and who would directly suffer for it? Their son. So where I always found the blatant bias of articles or the always ridiculous non-argument "you just believe _____ because _____" inherently dishonest and icky, I think we should definitely take better stock of how we approach these topics for more than just the intellectual honesty, but also to recognize the second, third, and even fourth order effects our method of approach manifests. Outrage, especially about something moral, feels good, but what good is it when directed the way it is in this article? I could accuse them of being blind and only utilizing outrage as a clickbait tactic, and I have a chance of being correct, but I'm not arrogant enough to assert that I know for a fact what they believe and intend and post that on the internet.