commiewithoutorgans

Unintended may be somewhat true, in that nobody explicitly had that as a conscious reason, but it was an obvious result that they could've known beforehand. So I don't think it's useful at all to call it unintended. Just an easily understood and expected side effect

Libs and your obsession with whataboutism. This one isn't even "whatabout," the point is that the guy in this picture was fine, and in fact the army did everything in their power not to harm him.

In a complete opposite fashion, US drone operators gleefully shot random people and caused unbelievable harm to an entire region.

I proudly defend whataboutism when it's used to exemplify the necessity of some tactic elsewhere or to compare similar cases for better understanding. But this isn't even that

Yeah I should say, I'm not worried about theft as a phenomenon, I just wouldn't have an electric bike outside considering I don't earn enough to lose something like that. Theft is a tragic symptom but I also prefer not to be affected by it lol

But smart, having inside places is cool. Most places I go and bike to wouldn't have that

Is bike theft not a major issue in New York It's the main thing keeping me from getting one. Bikes get stolen so frequently that I prefer my 100 buck bike, much more easily replaced.

Philosophy absolutely has the ability to examine and propose better definitions when definitions (like the ones you linked) do not capture the phenomenon. Losurdo read more books than you've seen by liberals in order to write his "Liberalism" book. He understood the phenomenon deeper and further than its dictionary use.

How do you capture such a thing in your world view? Because he found flaws in definitions and worked deeper, he just did nothing because it wasnt the Oxford definition?

Liberalism is associated with those things because it allowed them to happen to avoid a negative effect to property rights (revolution, riots) once more radical people pushed for them. Liberalism is reactionary and regressive, but some liberals are easier to convince of specific rights extensions than others. You've been lied to a lot if you think liberals did these things

Honestly, I see this text often quoted form the book but I don't find it super useful as a way to understand fascism. The steps and reforms were all taken for a reason and people agreed with that reason, even the apprehensive agreed enough to stay seated. I think this "separation" isn't the best thesis out of this book, because the Nazi Party didn't shift too much in terms of popularity throughout these shifts, except to grow more popular during wartime. The government promised something and many accepted those conditions or at least lent moral license to the achieving the goal and were unwilling to oppose the conditions.

Fascism is Liberalism when and where Liberalism fails to accomplish it's promises and must consume the people and stuff at the periphery to achieve its goals. A government is just as "far" from its people when it is doing good things that it's people desire as when it does bad things.

I love the book but have major issues with the ideological assumptions, mostly surrounding fascism's relationship to its people and to other ideologies

They Thought They Were Free. Book caused me to reevaluate exactly how politics at individual and social levels happened and how fascism works without any individual being inherently "evil." Class politics and interests followed closely behind to explain how evil can arise among populations that all consider themselves "good people"

Some really good artists at Hexbear too

Hexbear The best community on the internet

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with something? Is this a critique of AES?

I would be easily convinced I was wrong if you'd show any sort of proof. So take your imperialist ass and shove yourself in a wood chipper or a mineshaft if you are unwilling to spend 5 minutes googling to prove your claim or prove yourself wrong.