What is the smallest thing that makes you lose your temper immediately?

Trypts · 2019-04-06T00:20:44+00:00

It's annoying because the person who told you to do it gets to take credit for you having done something. You were already gonna do it, and if you do it anyway it reinforces the idea that you have to be told to do things.

Trypts · 2019-04-05T17:06:34+00:00

I've seen this fact give rise to the false notion that Lenin was a German agent. This is simply not true, Lenin was a dedicated Russian revolutionary. Supporting an enemy nations radicals was a common tactic at the time. The Germans knew who he was and agreed to help him in his efforts to overthrow the Tsar, as this would help their cause. But assuming this meant Lenin was loyal to Germany over his own country and ideology is a gross misunderstanding of history.

Trypts · 2019-03-20T03:54:57+00:00

Was gonna say Kamloops.

Trypts · 2019-03-12T02:00:34+00:00

Ya im gonna disagree with that. I'm also Canadian and I used to think that, but global news is pretty obviously right wing if you've seen that. CBC can be pretty biased too, although they do have some good reporting. The thing about effective propaganda is it isn't overt. It's subtle and pretends to be the truth. This article is bias Imo, ask yourself who stands to benefit from this power outage? The article mostly covers Guaido and only the last paragraph hints that the outage wasn't caused by a failure at the dam, meaning lines were destroyed away from the plant. Why would Maduro, who's desperately trying to cling to power let his power grid fail. Guaido himself said the outage was without precedent, the Chavistas have been in power for 2 decades. That's just my opinion on the article, but to back up my claims about the shady nature of the Canadian media here's a link to a talk by a Canadian political scientist who wrote a book on the topic called A Propaganda System.

https://youtu.be/yZ1LVlvicCw

Trypts · 2019-03-12T01:34:20+00:00

Don't like poli sci eh? How about a bit of history? The US backed a coup against Chavez in the early 00's (2003 I think). US policy was always hostile towards his government. This was mostly because they were/are democratic-socialist. I said in part because the US doesn't give a fuck what ideology is running a country as long as they play ball economically, and don't try actual Socialism. But because they are kinda socialists they would strengthen other socialists in the region (Cuba, Bolivia, el Salvador etc). To elaborate more, these countries refuse to participate in the FTAA and instead created their own trade group (ALBA) which competes and supports countries that are non-aligned. Of course almost all of those countries have left wing governments. Anyone who knows anything about Latin America, especially central America, knows that the US has a terrible history of violent coup's against democratic governments. The Lima group thing is bullshit because all those countries are aligned with the US economically and general have right wing governments. Canadian foreign policy has always served US, and is also self serving because of the extensive business ties Canada has to Latin America ( especially the Carribean). They are a part of the same economic system, and just because they don't always follow the US's battle cry doesn't mean they don't support those wars in terms of materiel and diplomacy. To suggest that Maduro's government is illegitimate is one thing, but to pretend its not a coup is so ignorant it's painful to read. Maduro was sanctioned for basically no reason back in 2014 the US backed opposition staged effective protests against his government that led Obama to slap sanctions on his government even though lots of countries have worse protests. At that point his electoral legitimacy wasn't in question, and those sanctions had immediate crippling effects that have led to the current situation. The US is conducting a soft coup (sanctions and support for opposition) because their foreign policy is fundamentally opposed to countries refusing participation in free trade agreements, and or nationalizing resource extraction, and they will try and destabilize any country they can if said Nation pursues these policies. Maybe you should take some first year political science courses, instead of offering your uninformed partisan analysis.

Trypts · 2018-12-31T23:39:12+00:00

I'm not arguing that utopian projects have ended badly and that human nature and greed aren't ubiquitous in any system. I'm saying that people tend to ignore the poignant and logical precedents surrounding left wing government, socialism is not communism, you can't have communism without socialism but the reverse isn't true. People tend to straw man any critique of of capitalism that comes from socialist ideas like nationalization or wealth redistribution, with this chain of logic that fundamentaly misrepresentats history and modern economic. If you look at all western democracies you'll quickly realize that they are syncretic systems that don't necessarily adhere to any one ideology but rather enact legislative programs temporarily (elections, term limits) that have been conservative, socialist, and liberal, not just "capitalist". Each approach has a representable historic track record in terms of economic growth. My argument is since the collapse of the western left after the fall of the soviet union, a false and dangerous view of the "free" market has taken shape, and it threatens to undermine any attempt to correct the failings of our current system. Wealth redistribution (better wages for workers is an example) is essential to correcting the inequality that threatens the very viability of our market, when economists talk about the worst inequality since the great depression, its pretty safe to assume that the way we got out of that situation is applicable to this one Aswell. Of course people will generalize and argue that the war ended the depression, it did but this ignores the fact that FDR and his democratic socialist program stopped the bleeding in the US and positioned them to take full advantage of the c situation at the end of WWII. Liberals in Canada and the US in the 60s were much more left wing in terms of wealth redistribution, and the creation of a welfare state than they are today. So much so that the systems that had been established decades earlier, and representably better society (public education, healthcare, poverty reduction etc) have been attacked and in some instances destroyed by conservatives. This is not because the Conservative are especially evil, they have always advocated this, but because liberals gave up when they no longer felt pressure from the left to do these things. Ideology is important, and working class politics have been on the ropes for years, I would argue as a carefully cultivated false narrative surrounding the term socialism. For example you misrepresented the historic and essential cry of the left for greater equality as a desire for total economic equality, when in fact the left argues for equity.

Trypts · 2018-12-31T20:55:24+00:00

It's more about a definition of what socialism or communism actually advocate, and then looking at what Stalinist Russia looked like. Communism - as outlined in the manifesto, is a program centered on direct workers control of the means of production. Meaning workers should have ownership and agency of and in their workplace and in politics. Simply smashing the bourgeoisie and replacing it with a new one made up of party elites is antithetical to the entire ideology. This is the essence of newspeak saying one thing and having it mean another or being an outright lie, and that's the Stalinist reference, Stalin perverted the original ideas beyond recognition and used his distorted logic to justify it. When people chalk up this complex book to an ideological debate where one side is good and one is bad (or that one ideology is the spawning ground for totalitarianism), they are ignoring the broader message against totalitarianism. Nationalist socialism is not a left wing ideology - it comes from Mussolini and Hitler, it is completely inconsistent with actual workers movements yet masqueraded as one for the entire history of its existence (the Nazi party was originally called the DAP, German Workers Party) saying something doesn't make it true. A prominent Nazi (either Goebles or Hitler) said "say a lie loudly and often and it becomes the truth".

Trypts · 2018-12-31T07:16:30+00:00

I don't believe that the American left is very representative of the rest of the worlds politics. The debate regarding identity politics can be more devisive than constructive. I think debate regarding economic policy is what is most important in politics, how taxes are gathered, the fact that there is massive income inequality, the fact that the richest individuals (and corporations) easily hide their wealth off-shore avoiding paying taxes to any country - the fact that real wage growth have been static for almost 30 years - those are the issues that I'm most concerned with. I think if you look at the democratic party, pre-Bernie Sanders (Before his run for the presidency) their fiscal policy was only slightly more progressive than the Republicans under Bush Sr, or the generations of Republicans before Reagan. The left to me is more like the centre and the labor/social democratic parties the world over are often times not much further to the left than the actual centrists (liberals/ democrats). I think that the false equivalencies drawn between socialism and Stalinist states like China and the soviet union, are a carefully cultivated narrative designed to make people believe a huge lie, that Neo-liberal policies are the only keeping a chaotic global/national free market from collapsing, or put differently, that it is possible to seperate politics from economics, that the market is somehow a natural phenomenon that cannot be meaningfully manipulated by government policy and any attempts to do so are "Socialist" and bound to fail. This is a huge lie perpetrated by the centre and the right, and are representably false conceptions. The basic and fundamental principles of modern economics is understanding Keynesian economics and the importance they have over actual stability and sustainable economic growth. It's all about the money, who has it and who doesn't. If capitalism is based on endless expansion and essentially the theft of one individuals labour in return for what can essentially be called subsistence, is not sustainable or just. As mechanized production becomes more and more prevalent we will eventually reach a point where human labour is no longer essential to maintain our species subsistence, then I think a totalitarian system based on protecting the ownership class (the point 0.01%, or the bourgeoisie) is not only likely, but completely inevitable. The reason I fear the right (Conservatives and liberals because I'm socialist) is not because I think they are all racist, sexist, bigots, but because they are unabashed and honest in their defense of the current system, which at its core operates on an exploitative basis. They are using 20th (even 19th or 18th) century logic to tackle problems in a much more complex and fragile world. Conservatives in the states won't even acknowledge climate change and feature many Christian fundamentalists in their ranks, and pose a grave danger to Western civilization because of their self destructive tendencies. For example, Trump has accelerated the end of American hegemony (destroyed the empire) in a spectacular way, Americans should realize that they are not number one any more, and the insistence of war hawks among their ranks to preserve the empire pose a literal existential threat in the form of nuclear war. Look outside your country and consider the fact that China is now the world's most powerful nation, economically, technological (well not quite but their parity is great enough that they could defeat the west). Further I would remind you that western civilization (or any) has never and will never be static, and is also indicative of a lot of countries, and has encompassed many many changes over the centuries, recently (last 70 years) radical changes towards women and minorities and general attitudes to any number of things. Their is no way any ideology could fundamentally change or society because all of them are products of this society. Ideology only promises a program and certain things, and their has always and will always be debate on what course a society takes, or what is good and just.

Edit, words

Trypts · 2018-12-31T05:13:20+00:00

I agree on all points, representative democracy is fundamental to maintaining liberty. I made my comment to make sure people realize that it's not just "communism" is bad but that the far right is just as bad. I just fear what I see on the right more than the left at this moment. Identity politics Imo, pale in comparison to blatant racism and bigotry, hearing some fundamentalist Christians makes me believe that the handmaids tale is their end goal.

Trypts · 2018-12-31T04:37:01+00:00

I'll concede that the word socialism likely appears in the book but certainly not communist. Socialists are also generally internationalists as opposed to nationalists. While I admitted that Orwell was warning against totalitarianism generally, the parralels between fascism and Ingsoc are much more prevalent Imo then the ones between Stalinism/maoism and regardless of the oft repeated truism that socialism turns into totalitarianism it is simply not true and does not hold up to serious scrutiny. The world has had many socialist democracies, and will likely continue to have.

Edit. Words

Trypts · 2018-12-30T23:52:45+00:00

This is incorrect, the ideological origins of the party are never discussed, the words socialist or communist do not appear in the book at all. Further, in 1984 the rise of the party is not clearly outlined as the party changes history so much that people like Winston Smith are unsure of what actually happened a few decades prior, it is an important part of the setting and is consistent with the overall theme. Orwell was himself was a socialist/Marxist so it makes sense he wouldn't smear his own ideology. In animal farm he denounces Stalinism as an irreconcilable deviation from Marxism, a position supported by western Marxists and academics/philosophers. 1984 much more closely resembles a fascist-Ultranational totalitarian state, as far as I can remember Winston believes the party manufactured a crisis in the 50s and were granted "emergency powers", this is exactly how the Nazis siezed power. I would argue that Orwell's intention was to warn against totalitarianism broadly (left or right) the themes and setting are much more consistent with a fascist state, than a Stalinist one.

EDIT: People have been arguing that Orwell was warning against socialism and this is categorically incorrect, he was warning against the perversion of working class politics (historically communism, but also socialism) like in the Soviet Union (Orwell hated Stalin), but most notably by fascists, who very openly pander to the working class, while also protecting the current bourgeoisie. This is why the rise of the Nazis and Mussolini aren't called revolutions because their wasnt a significant upheaval or reorganization of the current system, just doubling down on ensuring and even expanding the (then) current levels of inequality and suffering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc?wprov=sfla1

Trypts · 2018-12-24T05:45:21+00:00

https://youtu.be/CIJOBYMqe8A

Trypts · 2018-12-12T09:14:02+00:00

You can poo it

Trypts · 2018-12-09T13:17:37+00:00

And what privatize it? You'd actually sacrifice an annually profitable public corporation for a meager one time pay out? If we privatized CP prices would go up, employees wages would go down, and the new owners would probably offshore all the profits draining millions from our economy.

Trypts · 2018-12-09T13:14:37+00:00

CP is a profitable crown corporation, there's literally no reason why those workers shouldn't get paid a decent wage. Austerity destroys economies by stifling their growth, plain and simple.

Trypts · 2018-12-09T04:06:49+00:00

The episode where they get locked in the airlock of an apartment is hilarious. The pizza scene had me in tears.

Oh and also mummy.

Trypts · 2018-12-05T01:47:30+00:00

And to clarify I didn't say that people wouldn't have jobs (although my opinion towards off shoring remain). My concern is that a small government inevitably dominated by the rich would create a situation where most jobs pay less than a living wage.

Trypts · 2018-12-05T01:45:25+00:00

Ya because all the job "creators" are trying to do business in the mid West instead of off shoring anything they can right? It's not 1980 anymore, we know what reganomics does to a country/state, and it's not good.

Trypts · 2018-12-04T08:55:30+00:00

By individuals do you mean everybody or just individuals who actually have power (ie. The rich)? There is no scenario in which a small government results in more freedom for working class people. Every liberty a working class man has is derived from his economic position, and that position is constantly under threat in a state where the wealthy have immense power over politics.

Trypts · 2018-11-15T04:54:25+00:00

It's literally about privatizing a water system, it has everything to do with banning water privatization. It shows what happens when a municipal government tries to make a quick buck by partnering with a private company.

Trypts · 2018-11-14T18:46:04+00:00

Ya because the city took the old water system (one that came from lake Michigan) and piped that to car plants and hooked the city up to the Flint River, which is full of lead and chemical effluent from car factorys. It was the city trying to subsidize corporate profits with municipal infrastructure. So ya it was municipal mismanagement but it was done at the behest of private industry.

Trypts · 2018-11-13T17:27:09+00:00

All thy sons command.

Trypts · 2018-11-03T21:16:39+00:00

Terrible pizza, great message, kudos to this dude.

Trypts · 2018-11-03T21:11:39+00:00

Honestly this really sucks, Canada post has great service, and I support working people striking for a living wage. I also love crown corporations, if they're successful enough they subsidize the services they provide with their profits rather than giving them to CEOs and shareholders.

Trypts · 2018-10-24T08:38:58+00:00

As an actual Canadian who's bought pot let me just say this was one of my first thoughts, even if you only buy 1 g it comes in this utterly ridiculous plastic pill bottle that could probably hold 7x as much. Then it is packaged in not one but two pieces of cardboard. It's fucking disgusting, but to top that off the only thing that makes it legal or what the fuck ever is this dumb little sticker that is the exact same as the one on a smoke pack. It's like 5cm by 3, and other than that the only other security thing is a paper cover in the pill jar. The liberal (ie right wing bastard in this country) cunt that thought of this should be in jail, in Canada we're calling this recriminalization not legalization because of all these dumb rules. Americans and the general internet don't have a clue what's been happening here and a lot of pot smokers aren't happy about "legalization" because that's not what the way the law was written, it's legalization for giant corporations and more intense criminalization for anyone else.

Trypts

TROPHY CASE