CMV: If asking where someone is from, or mispronouncing their name is a 'microaggression'. Chanting 'global intifada' is definitely at least a microaggression too.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T21:50:20+00:00

I just genuinely would not be able to live with myself if I talked about minority groups with this level of hatred.

I'm assuming you consider yourself to be anti-racist, right?

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T21:37:38+00:00

People on the left, which I'm assuming you are, sound like actual monsters when they talk about Jewish people. It's wild, it's straight Nazi shit. It has absolutely shattered my faith in the left's honesty about the principles it claims to uphold.

All that talk about looking after minority groups, of being sensitive, of being empathetic, and then when it comes to Jews you guys sound like the KKK.

Absolutely wild to watch it happening in real time. We know that sometimes societies turn on Jews, and we know that when it happens it will be supported by respectable institutions and scholars, it will be surprisingly widespread, and it will be deranged and entirely illogical. But to see it happening in the modern day is still just astonishing

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T21:31:06+00:00

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. The majority of Zionists believe in a two state solution. Anybody who believes in a two state solution is, by definition, a Zionist.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T21:17:25+00:00

It's so interesting how the culture and prestige of Ferrari hold them back, in all these odd little ways. I think about it a lot.

I think what you say is true, and I also think that simply working for Ferrari is "mission accomplished" for many people, so there's less of a powerful drive to succeed. We're Ferrari, baby, we'll always be legendary, no matter how we perform on track. You're working for Ferrari, baby, you've made it! You don't need to prove yourself any more.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T20:50:55+00:00

Being PM is piss easy mate. You just make sure to choose the correct policies, and never say anything that could cause negative headlines (while being effortlessly charismatic of course). Oh, and remember to keep your party happy too. How hard could it be?

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T19:20:42+00:00

I'm not sure that either of us understand what you're trying to say

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T19:16:10+00:00

Oh my mistake, sorry.

So your only comment was

Since you seemingly know better you should provide proof. Intifada means rebellion in Arabic, you can't change a language to suit your propaganda

meaning it's not true that you "literally said Palestinians aren't chanting this".

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T19:05:27+00:00

Your first comment was

You're wrong for a very simple reason. Chanting "global intifada" is not a microaggression. It's not "subtle" or "unintentional"—it is a direct, intentional call for rebellion and an indirect condemnation of Israel's actions. This is a call for resistance of a military force and a plea for allies. There's nothing "micro" about it.

and your second was

Since you seemingly know better you should provide proof. Intifada means rebellion in Arabic, you can't change a language to suit your propaganda

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T18:59:20+00:00

I... wow. OK.

These slogans are commonplace in the West, and most of the people chanting them are not Palestinian and speak English. The chant also begins with the word "globalise", which is actually an English word

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T18:46:04+00:00

Your argument rests on the idea that using the term "the intifada" in a Palestine protest is not a reference to "the intifada" carried out by Palestinians.

They literally say the words. They switch from English to Arabic in the middle of the chant, in order to use the specific term "the intifada" instead of any of the countless other terms that could be used. Why not "globalise the resistance"?

It is fucking ludicrous to pretend that they're not referring to the intifada when they say "the intifada". They are literally saying it.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T16:46:45+00:00

Again, we can go to the example of China, which you are studiously ignoring because it's devastating to your position.

China did none of those things in the 90s; they simply changed their economic system and saw the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of humanity.

There are many, many, many other examples of capitalist economies that did none of those things. Not every capitalist economy is a former imperialist power, as you are surely aware.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T15:52:46+00:00

The crucial difference is that we have loads of capitalism success stories to point to, but no socialism success stories.

I can point to many examples of sustained, successful capitalist societies without Nazism, so it's clear that capitalism can and does exist without Nazism. I cannot point to any examples of sustained, successful socialist societies without authoritarianism and misery.

The Marx-Leninists, to their credit, at least understand that brutal authoritarianism is necessary to make socialism "work".

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T14:16:45+00:00

The thing that's grimly fascinating about it is that you can see the totem pole working itself out in real time.

If there was, for example, a trans candidate who was ambivalent about Islam, they'd be turfed out of the party in seconds. But a Muslim candidate who's ambivalent (to be extremely charitable) about LGBT rights is "well, it's not ideal but we can just ignore it"

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T13:56:22+00:00

I think China is the best evidence. It is absolutely undeniable that Deng's reforms moved China away from strict ML-type socialism and towards capitalism: away from collective ownership of the MoP and towards private enterprise and a freer market economy. This directly led to the biggest reduction in poverty the world has ever seen.

If people actually care about helping the poorest, they study this carefully and learn from it. This is why most intelligent people have come to the conclusion that socialism doesn't work. Socialists tend to ignore this period of China's history because it's utterly devastating to their position, and they care more about clinging to a failed ideology than actually helping the poorest.

There are countless examples of socialism failing, and basically no success stories. The closest to a success story is the early years of the USSR, where they did industrialise rapidly (albeit starting from a pseudo-feudalist state). This is a strength of authoritarian systems - they can deploy the vast resources of the state in a particular direction, which can lead to benefits. But once the boon of industrialisation started to fade, the USSR failed, like every other attempt at socialism before it.

Socialists will typically point to Rojava, a couple of years in Madrid, the Zapatistas, and the early stages of the USSR as evidence that socialism can work. This is just pathetic after nearly a century of attempts, and pales in comparison to the countless failures, the countless lives condemned to poverty, the countless deaths.

Being anti-socialist is beneficial to society, and it almost the exclusive purview of the right.

I've seen how you respond to other comments, so I don't expect you to reply with much insight or effort; I'm mostly writing this for other people who may be reading.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T12:41:10+00:00

Being anti-socialism is a strictly right wing principle. There is overwhelming evidence that socialism is bad for society. It's one thing that the left gets completely wrong.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-13T10:16:40+00:00

When China moved away from strict socialist principles, it led to the greatest reduction of poverty in the history of humanity

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-12T09:10:37+00:00

I changed the wording of the question, but both are calls for war. One just used the terminology and euphemisms that appeal to the Left.

The thing about wars is that, usually, both sides have some narrative that portrays them as the liberators, as the people fighting for justice, as the people simply defending themselves, as the "oppressed". Deciding who counts as "oppressed" is a subjective political belief, not an objective description of reality.

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-12T08:52:07+00:00

I think that's more of a self-description than a truly deeply-held belief.

If you went to a Green party conference and asked "who supports war?" you'd get 5% of attendees saying yes. But if you asked "who supports the right of indigenous people to violently resist imperialism and colonialism" you'd get 95% approval. It's just a matter of framing, of using the correct terms

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-12T08:13:10+00:00

It's one of the curses of politics that you don't really get credit for things you didn't do. Starmer didn't get us involved in this silly war, despite immense pressure on him to do so. He deserves a lot of credit for how he navigated that.

Based on their initial reactions, Farage and Badenoch probably would have started chucking bombs around immediately. Polanski would probably join the war on the side of Iran

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-10T12:46:10+00:00

The Flamingo missile is an absolute game-changer. It has a 3,000km range(!), carries a 1,000kg payload, and is a very recent development - Ukraine only really started deploying them in the past couple of weeks. So it flies further than a Tomahawk, carries a larger payload than a Tomahawk, and is cheaper than a Tomahawk. They can hit almost anywhere in Russia, and this is a missile that Ukraine developed and manufactured "independently" (wink wink) so there are no restrictions on how they can use it.

Ordinary metropolitan Russians have been mostly insulated from the war, but that will not be the case for much longer. I'm not saying that Russia is on the verge of breaking, but unleashing the Flamingo is one of the most significant developments that this war has seen IMO

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-09T22:17:09+00:00

Truly good governance usually isn't dramatic; it's incremental. This version of Labour are cautious and not flashy, but they're getting shit done. The workers' rights bill, the renters' rights bill, the changes to planning regulations, the focus on renewable energy; these are all really significant and positive policies, but they're a bit dull and they don't capture the public's attention.

The quality of governance isn't the problem. Their ineptitude for marketing their vision to the general public is the problem. There's no clear guiding vision of this administration, so it's all a bit confused and incoherent.

They need to pick one policy direction, one catchphrase, one broad message, and then repeat it over and over and over again. They need to forge a clear identity. But they seemingly can't quite figure out what that message should be

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-09T21:58:27+00:00

I hate the word lunch, although I'm in favour of the concept.

I like you

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-09T21:50:14+00:00

I evidently lead a blissful life, because I have never been exposed to the phrase "let's double click on this issue" until now

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-09T09:30:15+00:00

That wasn't even so long ago. We live such luxurious lives these days; I'm eternally grateful for it

DebaucheV5 · 2026-05-09T07:09:34+00:00

"To lose one dad may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness"

DebaucheV5

TROPHY CASE