

DPD has a loooooong, fucked up history with minorities. I’m not fan of cops, but I’ll take a W where I can get it.
Proud anti-fascist & bird-person
DPD has a loooooong, fucked up history with minorities. I’m not fan of cops, but I’ll take a W where I can get it.
There has been a concerted push by reactionary media to demonize it.
The same thing happened with issues like the estate tax, lawsuits against corporations, police reform, etc.
If you’re gonna catch some criminals, you’re gonna have to crack a few kid skulls.
Besides, being a cop is mostly boring. Don’t they deserve to act like an action movie hero every once in a while? It can’t all just be shooting dogs and writing tickets.
Is this your OC? I like your art style.
He only voted “no” because he knew it wouldn’t make a difference, and this way he gets to pretend like he’s a reasonable person.
Something I hadn’t know about her:
For her guidance of the raid at Combahee Ferry, which liberated more than 700 enslaved people, she is widely credited as the first woman to lead an armed military operation in the United States.
Leeks with Mushrooms and Cabbage
Serves 4 to 6 people Prep time: 15 minutes Cook time: 30 minutes
Ingredients: ● 2 large leeks, coined ● 1 small cabbage, rough chopped ● 3 C assorted mushrooms ● broth ● olive oil ● salt and pepper to taste
In a large pot, heat some oil over a medium flame. Add the mushrooms and saute until they give off their water. Be patient - mushrooms are very wet, and they need to be cooked down. This can take ten or more minutes. Add in the leeks and cabbage once most of the water has cooked off, and stir well. Add salt and pepper to taste, as well as another drizzle of olive oil if required to keep the ingredients from sticking to the pot. Continue to saute until the leeks and cabbage are soft. The flavor of morels, shitake, or oyster mushrooms really shine through in this kind of dish. However, you can make it with plain button or portabella mushrooms just as easily. It’s also possible to make these with dried mushrooms. Simply rehydrate them before cooking. They will not let off as much water when cooking, of course.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Yes, it’s common to all flavors of reactionary ideology.
Which is why it’s so rich for conservatives to pretend to hate “identity politics.” It’s literally all they have.
Reactionaries don’t care about other people.
Even their family; they’re notorious for disowning their children for being someone different than they wanted. They treat their wives like slaves.
He’s fine with it, because it doesn’t affect him. There’s no more thought to it than that. It’s an inherently anti-social ideology.
Their conception of morality is exactly backwards.
They first consider if the person aligns with their in-group. If so, then whatever they do (so long as it doesn’t directly have a negative impact on themselves) is by nature good.
Obversely, if a person is a member of a group that is not aligned with their tribe then any action taken is inherently wicked and detrimental to society.
They don’t judge morality by the action, they judge it by the actor.
Careful using Spanish words like “uno,” you might get deported.
German chocolate is like a whole other food than the wax that Hershey’s pretends is the real thing.
From They Thought They Were Free, the Germans 1933-45:
Because the mass movement of Nazism was nonintellectual in the beginning, when it was only practice, it had to be anti-intellectual before it could be theoretical. What Mussolini’s official philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, said of Fascism could have been better said of Nazi theory: “We think with our blood.” Expertness in thinking, exemplified by the professor, by the high-school teacher, and even by the grammar-school teacher in the village, had to deny the Nazi views of history, economics, literature, art, philosophy, politics, biology, and education itself.
Thus Nazism, as it proceeded from practice to theory, had to deny expertness in thinking and then (this second process was never completed), in order to fill the vacuum, had to establish expert thinking of its own—that is, to find men of inferior or irresponsible caliber whose views conformed dishonestly or, worse yet, honestly to the Party line. The nonpolitical pastor satisfied Nazi requirements by being nonpolitical. But the nonpolitical schoolmaster was, by the very virtue of being nonpolitical, a dangerous man from the first. He himself would not rebel, nor would he, if he could help it, teach rebellion; but he could not help being dangerous—not if he went on teaching what was true. In order to be a theory and not just a practice, National Socialism required the destruction of academic independence.
In the years of its rise the movement little by little brought the community’s attitude toward the teacher around from respect and envy to resentment, from trust and fear to suspicion. The development seems to have been inherent; it needed no planning and had none. As the Nazi emphasis on nonintellectual virtues (patriotism, loyalty, duty, purity, labor, simplicity, “blood,” “folk-ishness”) seeped through Germany, elevating the self-esteem of the “little man,” the academic profession was pushed from the very center to the very periphery of society. Germany was preparing to cut its own head off. By 1933 at least five of my ten friends (and I think six or seven) looked upon “intellectuals” as unreliable and, among these unreliables, upon the academics as the most insidiously situated.
I think we have a slight difference in terms: Biden is not and will never be a leftist. Same with the majority of the Democratic party.
Sure, he’s a liberal but liberalism is not a leftist ideology— it’s the scaffolding for capitalism.
This is not to say that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans (there is a huge difference), but Maher punches left with the same enthusiasm with which he punches right.
He’s not on the same level as someone like Hannity or Carlson, but he’s always arguing to sell out vulnerable groups— something that the Democrats do constantly without electoral gains to show for it.
I know OP used the word liberal, but I disagree with that characterization: he is a liberal, a “small c” conservative. I was going for brevity, but maybe I should have clarified there.
Took you all morning to think of that gem, huh?
Being a Nazi apologist must consume all of your brainpower.
Exactly this.
He’s a transphobic misogynist who only tolerates people under 30 because he wants to fuck them.
He’s a hateful, bitter man who thinks he’s a free-speech-warrior because he gives fascist freaks like Milo Yiannopoulos and Roger Stone a megaphone from which to spout their reactionary garbage with minimal pushback.
And he doesn’t see anything wrong with the genocide in Palestine; in fact, he seems to be a big fan.
Reactionary ideology is all about protecting privilege by demonizing marginalized people. They believe in zero-sum rights and privileges: in their view, expansion of rights for another group inherently means a loss of rights for them.
Oh, I appreciate the heads-up, but I’m well aquatinted with this particular reactionary.
I just think it’s important to point out that he’s a Nazi apologist; I don’t really expect a coherent answer.
Have you looked into selling to reenactors?
They seem willing to pay for handcrafted stuff.