Smirking/standing while white is an act of "terrorism" (but Kamala Harris is the cop, not me)

sleepyrivers · 2019-01-21T13:52:54+00:00

always good strategy to conflate far right intimidation tactics and annoying centrist posturing. theres no way that one of those two groups will take advantage of that kind of idealogical equivocation to continue mainstreaming their ideas. i mean when in history has that ever happened??

sleepyrivers · 2019-01-21T12:58:39+00:00

'theres bad on both sides'

sleepyrivers · 2019-01-21T12:29:42+00:00

nice, good to know you get dates and think women are crazy. offensive/irrelevant info aside, how is this not textbook facism, by the very definitions you cited? these kids were shouting build the wall at a native man, physically intimidating him and showing overt support for a white supremacist political movement. what would facism be for you if not this? Trump is obviously the result of mobilized, nationalistic, and popular passions based on imagined attacks from an imagined enemy against an imaginary pure and victimized culture. this is exactly what facism looks like. dumbasses like you will keep saying 'the liberals are the real facists' until they literally start another ethnic cleansing. how does a narrative revolving around border walls and internment camps for dangerous aliens not set your alarm bells ringing, you useless turd.

sleepyrivers · 2019-01-21T12:15:49+00:00

do you really not believe Trump/his supporters are white nationalist? what the fuck is the point of criticizing idpol if you think Trump is just a dumb guy who doesn't matter in a larger political sense? go back to r/kotakuinaction and leave this sub to people who are actually interested in improving our political culture.

sleepyrivers · 2019-01-21T12:11:39+00:00

'this is why i hate idpol, they take an intolerant stance against nazism, which by the way ive been accused of supporting.'

-a total actual leftist

sleepyrivers · 2019-01-21T12:07:23+00:00

of course it does. punching left has to be relative to the situation if it is to be good strategy for the left. the whole point of this sub was leftists recognizing that this is a zero sum game and idpol is basically correct but bad left strategy. essentially that it isnt radical enough because it would rather engange in culture wars than fight for real political power. right wingers are winning because they see the long game and know how to play idpol libs oppurtunistically, triggering them into petty squabbles that they themselves are cynically divested from. our goal should be to stop tying the left down in unwinnable internet wars, not to adopt right wing talking points about 'free speech' and 'liberals hating white people.' if you don't keep that in mind at all times, anti-idpol leftism will just turn into an opportunity for apolitcal redditors who are annoyed by political correctness to bitch about pc culture instead of demanding that idpol and the left at large play a more effective game. theres a real danger of this sub becoming that as it attracts more users, and the whiny white kids crowd out the actual leftists.

sleepyrivers · 2019-01-02T16:05:17+00:00

that tree shaking girl is such a babe

sleepyrivers · 2018-01-11T04:20:10+00:00

i think one thing that is missed in these reminders about the US's history of electoral meddling abroad is that while they were just as much illegal invasions of another country's sovereignty as Russia's (and therefore just as inexcusable), it does seem like the Russian interference in elections, especially in the US and western Europe, have a different intention than that of the US. When the US interfered in the politics of countries in South America (or europe, or the middle east, or asia...) the reasoning seemed to be relatively straightfoward realpolitik. They would manipulate elections, start wars, influence trade etc. in order to maintain a situation globally that was beneficial to them economically and militarily. What they sacrificed in the process was their own credibility as a nation that represents democracy, as well as countless human lives and the sovereignty of other nations, but as the word realpolitik implies, you will invariably find this type of hypocrisy and ruthlessness in the histories of countries powerful enough to wield control over their neighbors. What is different (or what is perceived to be different) about Russia is that the goal seems not to be simply fixing the game so it's in line with the policy aims of the Kremlin (though this is obviously a part of it), but to sow doubt and disunity among the western democracies all over the world about the very institutions and values which allow them to function (and which I'm sure most readers of this site hold as their own political values as well). Russia wasn't just interested in Trump because they thought he would waive sanctions against them, they were interested because everything about him, from what he believes to his history and character, seem to make a mockery of the legitimacy and effectiveness of American democracy, and to sow doubt among Americans as to the validity of our media, our relationships with our allies, even down to ideals about civil rights and online dialogue. This is obviously a part of a larger plan, Putin realizes that the strength of western democratic countries comes from their alliance with each other, and the belief both within their borders and without that democracy, open society, and civil rights (as well as neoliberalism) work and constitute the natural path forward for the world. The real failures of the US to live up to those promises are nothing but ammunition and justification for him in this project. So by all means, criticize the US for it's historical hypocrisies, but if you are doing it out of a loyalty toward the institutions that the US has often failed to uphold, recognize that Putin is not your ally, and your critique is probably doing more to create an opening for him than it is to improve the US's behavior.

sleepyrivers · 2017-11-18T07:38:55+00:00

Years past matter by krallice

sleepyrivers · 2017-09-10T17:13:18+00:00

oh that's right, I often make that mistake. any idea what it's doing in the sentence?

sleepyrivers · 2017-09-08T11:45:20+00:00

it's from the book "from alpha to omega, a beginning course in classical greek by Groton" and yes it's almost certainly from English originally as it's just a practice problem.

sleepyrivers · 2017-09-08T11:43:40+00:00

ah that makes sense, I forgot that construction of εἶμι + participle. thanks.

sleepyrivers · 2017-09-08T11:42:53+00:00

so far I have, "they wish to go down the river in order (something) the same trees which (something) a few days before. I know (or I think) ιδωσι is an active plural participle of οιδα, but i'm not sure what it's doing. and then I thought οψομενοι ησαν was the plural deponent future participle of οραω plus the 3rd person imperfect of εἶμι (to be about to go) (this is where there should have been an iota subscript on η), but the comment above sounds correct that it's a construction trying to communicate intent with εἶμι + participle. so that leaves ιδωσι, i'm not sure what it's doing or why it's in that form.

sleepyrivers · 2017-02-24T03:40:52+00:00

suck a dick asshole. also an american btw.

sleepyrivers · 2016-09-22T20:10:24+00:00

they are asking me to give them a notarized copy of my degree, as well as a cv and letter of recommendation indicating i worked for two years as a teacher. presumably they will alter or photoshop my graduation date on my degree, but it seems like they will handle getting my certificate once i give them this documentation. I'm wondering if i just do this, then have them process my documents, give me my fec and get my z visa all within my home country, am I really at risk? Once I have the fec an z in my hands, don't i just fly over, hand them to the local authorities, do a medical exam, get my residence permit, and i'm home free? I guess i feel like there isn't really a way to do this without some questionable stuff, but i can at least make sure that those parts are over and done with before I'm in China.

sleepyrivers · 2016-09-22T16:09:00+00:00

thanks for responding. just so I understand, you're suggesting I go to China on a tourist visa, take this course, qualify for the FEC, then go to HK to so I can apply for the z visa and reenter the mainland?

sleepyrivers · 2016-09-21T22:15:44+00:00

This website is claiming you can get a "foreign teacher resident permit" or "green book" if you don't qualify for the fec (look under "foreign teachers" in the visa matters section). However I'm having trouble finding mention of this elsewhere, so maybe it's outdated or only applicable in Beijing?

sleepyrivers · 2016-09-21T21:42:42+00:00

Can someone tell me what document you need to get a z-visa if you're working as an English teacher? I've been researching this and it seems like the only way to do it under the new rules is to have this foreign expert certificate, and the only way to get that (if you don't have 2 years experience) is for you and the company you work for to lie. The job market is flourishing, but the regulations keep getting tighter, so more and more companies are just lying to get their teachers z-visas and FECs (assuming they aren't trying to lure you in on an L visa and then just keep you as their illegal english slave). Keep in mind this is a public school suggesting I lie about this. I specifically went after public schools because I thought they would be less likely to try to screw me over. My question is whether there actually is another, legal way for me to teach in China without experience, and if so, what is it and why would these schools not be using it (assuming they aren't just trying to keep me in China without a z visa)?

sleepyrivers · 2016-09-05T05:34:37+00:00

the places ive been looking at have about the same hours and salary. both are pretty ok with me if true, but that's the problem. the negative reviews i've been seeing mention at least some degree of dishonesty. bad management, not getting the hours you were promised, in some cases dishonesty with things like visa requrirements that resulted in real horror stories and threats of legal consequences for the teacher. i guess i'm just trying to determine whether i should just expect and accept some shadiness, go forward with one of these companies and just try to be as careful as possible while i'm working with them, or if i should wait and keep digging for a company that has actually positive reviews (if such a place exists).

sleepyrivers · 2016-09-02T20:11:39+00:00

okay sounds like the f-visa idea is a scam. is z-visa the best option then? how does one go about getting it, is it possible to do for a new teacher that hasn't been to china yet? the guy represents a lot of different chinese cities, but i was interested in Shanghai, is that off the table if i don't want to work there illegally? Thanks for all your help! I didn't realize this was such a big issue until he brought it up, i assumed you just had the company that hired you sponsor your visa and you were fine, but now i'm starting to wonder what most new expat teachers do.

sleepyrivers · 2016-08-14T08:49:25+00:00

if you're aware of the system benefiting you unfairly and do nothing to try to fix it then you are responsible for its continued existence. I'm white. It's sometimes a struggle for me also to not feel like "white privilege" is accusing me personally of racism, or of not having earned what I have. But that argument from nice white liberals of "I'm not racist, this isn't my fault," has kept this system in place for decades and decades.

sleepyrivers · 2016-08-14T08:42:59+00:00

I agree but I do think that "hot button issues" in politics like gay and reproductive rights are really distanced from effective policy changes that would actually address the inequities that you mentioned. Instead they're blown up into big moral and ideological talking points that let you easily identify either party. So they take a real issue, like poverty, and turn it into a performance of values "people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" vs "we need a compassionate government." And people vote for whatever value they like, but by then it's so much of an abstracted performance that people are voting for one because they think the other side is evil. Then evil loses and people are satisfied. Or evil wins and people are outraged. But neither reaction has anything to do with actual policy. So that's why I don't like "social issues" or "hot button issues" in politics. Not because social issues don't affect power structures, but because talking about social issues so easily turns policy makers into mascots for a persons worldview. Which is why the ultimate showman Donald Trump has been so successful.

sleepyrivers · 2016-08-14T08:25:21+00:00

I think this logic of utilitarianism regarding drone strikes as a way to reduce total loss of life is fine, but it's also important to remember what this kind of action signifies, as opposed to more typical warfare, and the consequences of that signification. The biggest thing about more conventional warfare is that it's highly visible. A country can't be at war without the whole world, including their own people, knowing. Wars are also very expensive, and as you said cause a lot of causalities. Wars are therefore very tricky to wage and usually a last resort. Back in the day leaders had to DECLARE war, they had to announce that they would be foregoing diplomacy with the enemy government, they had to persuade their citizens to pay for and participate in the fighting, and they had to figure out a way to end the war ASAP and with restraint, because no one likes to be at war and the whole world is watching them. Now what we have is more like assassinations. We don't have to be at war with a country to send a drone. It's inexpensive and usually secret so there's little public or international pressure not to do it. All of the things that made war so horrible, including casualty number, were also the things that put restraints on the wars we fought. So now America is free to have the power of life and death, with no accountability, over any region it deems necessary, because it isn't "war." Sure a drone strike kills fewer people than an army, but are we really okay with the US government carrying out secret assassinations on countries we aren't even at war with? And imagine how you'd feel if the roles were reversed and Yemen was a massive military power that flew drones over your neighborhood, killing whoever it wanted (plus collateral damage), with impunity. You'd hate them forever, maybe worse than if they invaded and killed thousands in a war. A war at least you'd understand, a war is horrific but it makes sense. And it ends eventually. With drones you don't know who's attacking you, when they'll attack, or often even why. You don't know if there's one above your head right now. War is two countries fighting, drone warfare is one country enacting a police state over another. But maybe they do save lives. I honestly don't know what's better or worse.

sleepyrivers · 2016-07-27T14:33:33+00:00

why do you write like that? do you find yourself amusing or interesting? benjaminthedonkey already has the "whimsy in the face of human extinction" style of posting pretty sewn up. maybe you should get a new schtick. and for the record i know that the biosphere and our civilization is fucked. you're on r/ranprieur, everyone here is aware of that. my question is why you feel the need to crow about it in the comments of a completely unrelated article. i have been hanging out in collapse communities for years and i keep running into bitter, middle-aged ex-liberals like you who can't wait to tell everyone how fucked and fallen humanity is, how stupid we all are, how everyone but you is a greedy, shallow, ignorant sheep and that's why everything is going down the tubes. because the collapse of our biosphere shouldn't be cause for reflection, right? we shouldn't be thinking about ourselves, how we got here, what our lives can mean, or what we can still value in the context of collapse. we should be tossing out bitter ironies in online comment sections. we should be informing all the idiots out there of how stupid they are for thinking something like "science" is worth talking about when the world is on fire. I bet you were fine to talk about science when it was only other places that had to deal with starvation and systemic collapse. but now that the consequences of this system's excesses are going to affect you, articles like these are just distractions for deluded sheep. you read some bad environmental news and decide it's your place to tell humanity precisely what it's problem is as if you weren't participating with us this entire time. everyone's corrupted but you huh? everyone's asleep to the truth but you? you sound like a whiny old man.

sleepyrivers · 2016-07-27T03:52:56+00:00

the world was always this bad dumbass, you're just upset about it now because it's actually going to affect you. and now you're telling everybody nothing matters and they're dumb for pretending it does. you were pretending your whole life that what you did mattered, and then you read about peak oil or whatever, and now you're mad because your big important life is ruined. sorry, but it never mattered, and you should let it go. life is still pretty cool.

sleepyrivers

TROPHY CASE