Do you live in a country where the government would put a gun to YouTube’s head and say 'YOU HAVE TO KEEP BROADCASTING THIS MAN’S CHANNEL, PUT ADS ON IT, AND SHARE THE AD REVENUE WITH HIM, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, UNTIL AND UNLESS HE IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME"?
That seems weird.
Ah yes, it was all a false flag, instigated by the government to take away our freedoms, I get it
That next year that transition of power came under direct attack
I’m pretty sure Obama allowed power to be transferred peacefully to Trump, just like every other president had before him.
^^^ statement dreamed up by the utterly DERANGED
So this is one of those things like git, where you can’t explain how it works on the surface to a normal person because it barely even makes sense if you don’t know about the underlying plumbing. :\
Not awesome, but I guess that’s what you get when you graft a reddit-like experience onto a fediverse that was more or less invented for microblogging.
You can still make websites, fam. And you can go to websites other people have made. Nothing ever changed there. You just left it behind and went onto social media.
Also if you’re banned from a place, you’re not in a “void that is inescapable,” you’re just not in that place anymore. You can go to other places. If you think not being on a particular piece of social media is a “void that is inescapable,” you’ve decided that everything outside that social media system is a “void,” and that’s on you.
We did that in class, but only when I was a very little kid, like in elementary school in the 70s.
In retrospect, it’s creepy, but by the time I was old enough that I might have questioned it, we weren’t doing it anymore.
This Whitest Kids You Know video about it sums it up pretty well. (Although the dig at Ritalin at the end is kinda weird)
From the Pledge of Allegiance to in-school John Birch society events is a hell of an acceleration. Holy shit.
That is a pretty wild definition of “racism” as “the idea that there are races.”
But I kind of see how you got there.
The idea that human beings can be carved up along certain lines (demarcated by skin color and ancestry) and that there are significant differences between human capability across these dividing lines - and that justifies power differences and relationships of oppression between those groups – those are the ideas behind racism, which expresses itself in oppression and injustice.
But the fact that people do carve up humanity along those lines, and therefore people find themselves put in these categories we call “races,” and have different experiences and opportunities based on which one they find themselves in – that’s a fact. It’s not racist to acknowledge it – indeed, in a way, it would be racist to deny it because it would be denying the reality of oppression.
So “the idea that there are races” = “people are inherently and biologically divided up into ‘black’, ‘white’, etc and this indicates fundamental differences between them” – that’s racism
“the idea that there are races” = “there are ‘races’ because there are structures in the world which are built on the idea of ‘races’ having inherent biological differences, and these structures affect people” – that’s accurately recognizing that racism exists.
Does that make sense?