Ah oui, dit comme ça je comprends mieux ton point vue
Maintenant que l’extrême droite en a fait un marche-pied, il vaut mieux qu’il se mette en retrait.
Honnêtement je pense qu'on a tendance à se faire gaslight avec l'idée que le but de la gauche c'est de prendre les voies de l'extrême droite. Les racistes vont voter pour le parti du racisme, et il y a plein de racistes en France. On devrait pas écouter ces gens
C'est ça la vrai question. Mais là dans l'article on se doute bien que sur les marchés de Picardie où visiblement ils ont tous votés RN c'est pas majoritairement des gens de gauche qui venaient se plaindre de lui à Ruffin
D’un côté, il y avait la force d’attraction du RN : en face de moi, le candidat, c’était Jordan Bardella. Pour bien des gens, Marine Le Pen et lui incarnent le changement. Et, de l’autre côté, une force de répulsion. Pendant trois semaines, nous avons porté notre croix, un sac à dos rempli de pierres, on s’est heurtés à un mur, à un nom : « Mélenchon, Mélenchon, Mélenchon. »
Donc le problème avec Mélenchon c'est que les racistes ne l'aiment pas? Quoiqu'on pense de lui ça me semble pas être la critique la plus pertinente à lui faire
J'ai manqué de nuance, c'est vrai que cet amalgame existe, mais déjà il existe surtout chez les crypto-droitistes comme Soral, et tout ça n'empêche pas que
les résultats du baromètre tendent à montrer que les opinions antisémites restent largement structurées par les vieux stéréotypes parmi l’ensemble des sondés
Ça veut bien dire ce que ça veut dire, l'idée que désormais c'est la gauche les vrais antisémites alors que le RN est désormais clean c'est ahurissant
Après j'avoue j'y vais fort quand j'accuse le journal d'être complaisant avec cette idée, je comprends qu'on ne partage pas ce sentiment
Malgré l’émergence d’un « nouvel antisémitisme » chez les musulmans et une partie de l’extrême gauche « qui s’appuierait sur un antisionisme amalgamant et diabolisant “juifs”, “Israéliens” et “sionistes” », les résultats du baromètre tendent à montrer que les opinions antisémites restent largement structurées par les vieux stéréotypes parmi l’ensemble des sondés.
Traduction : mon opinion sur une question est contredite par les faits que je cite mais bon je vais quand même le formuler d'une manière tordue parce que c'est très important que les gens pensent que la gauche est antisémite quand l'extrême droite est aux portes du pouvoir
Pour eux le nucléaire et l’hydroélectricité c’est quoi ?
Le nucléaire c'est connu que c'est un sujet qui divise au sein de LFI, mais ils ont tranché contre pour la ligne officielle. Ma théorie c'est que c'est parce que les pro-nucléaires sont moins susceptibles de ne pas voter pour cette raison que l'inverse. Sur l’hydroélectricité, je crois qu'ils ont juste oubliés de le mentionner ici mais ils parlent souvent d'hydroliennes
Le Canard Enchaîné correspond à ce critère. Je pense que c'est le seul vrai journal centriste. Après ce n'est que mon avis très biaisé à gauche
Selon lui, les étudiants qui bloquent les établissements sont « politisés.
????????
Eventually, as in other democracies, those responsible for wrongdoing are held accountable.
So the Western block has zero democracies, thanks for saying it out loud 👍
Boss make a dollar
I make a dime
I scroll lemmygrad
On company time
My conclusion after being radicalised in a student union (in France for context) is that generally speaking, students are doomers at best and arrogant petit bourgeois pricks at worse. There was a time where a lot of students could get political education with the youth wings of parties, but this time is mostly over thanks to the revisionists who were incapable of listening and build mutual trust with the youth.
I don't believe in "generation war" per say but if there's one little bit of truth to it is that if you're not consciously radically open to the novelty that younger ones bring then the revolutionary potential is hard reset and you're back to square one
Bro the notification has been stuck for two days I can't use the ☑️ button to get rid of it, I think it's the size that made the lemmy notification go bad 😵💫
Edit : Ok so replying made it disappear, let's call it a workaround 🤣
It's a wierd take, I've never seen class reductionism defined like that.
They properly understood the battles for racial and gender equality as constitutive elements of struggle for the working class
Yeah that's right, but who is calling this class reductionism ? If anything it's an intersectional analysis at its core, understanding the intersection between class and other conditions.
I've always seen class reductionism defined as an attempt to diminish the importance of those struggle, while here the author implies that Marxism fully incorporating those struggle is the thing they call class reductionism?
I think they are good faith and got gaslit by the strategy of dirty words that liberalism relied upon for decades. He must have came across a lib saying that any attempt to build solidarity of all struggles by using class analysis is "reductionism" in order to use the rightful bad connotation of the word to smear a deeply progressive and revolutionary concept.
signs that prohibit POC from establishments hold the same gravity and moral depravity as “no pets” signs.
Haven't seen it under that angle, and it makes it so much worse
They can have a little WW3, as a treat
No Blacks. No Jews. No Dogs. No Irish.
No dogs??? Someone who doesn't like being around dogs and wouldn't want the burden to take care of one are the same as nazis now??
Veganism and materialism
After reading some discussion on lemmygrad about veganism, I felt the need to share my thoughts in a separate thread, as comments weren't appropriate for the wall of text I'm about to throw.
Before we start, very important precision. This is not about environmental veganism, only about animal-liberation veganism. Consuming less animal products will be a lifestyle change we must anticipate to limit environmental destruction. This is about the moral philosophy of veganism and its contradictions with materialism.
Intro
Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.
Now, I must say, if one is to contest the validity of this syllogism as a basis for veganism I encourage them to provide one since it could drastically change my point of view.
Like many syllogisms, there is appeal and validity to it until you question the premises. Let's review them under a materialistic lens.
Morality and materialism
The first premise is that it is immortal to kill and exploit humans. As leftists, we tend to wholeheartedly agree with such a statement, as it encapsulates our ambitions and dreams, however this cannot be pursued for a political manifest beyond utopian wishful thinking. Historically, killing has been justified as a high moral act whenever the one being killed was deemed worthy of death. The reason it is generally considered immoral to interrupt one's life is because humans simply have to collaborate to survive, therefore every society has developed a social construct that allows us to live as a social productive species. But whenever a war enemy, criminal, or dissident person is being killed under certain circumstances, the killing becomes justified, morally right.
As materialists, we don't base our interpretation of morality on a notion of some metaphysical, reality-transcending rule, and even less in relation to an afterlife. Morality is a human construct that evolves with material conditions. In that case, the relationship of human morality with non-human animals becomes more complicated than it seems. Humans do have empathy for other species but are also able to consume their flesh and products, a contradiction that has defined the construction of morality around non-human animals through history. This explains why it seems desirable for a lot of people to stop unnecessary animal cruelty while still wanting to consume their flesh, there is an act of balancing between empathy and appetite.
Equality of species and violence
Now you might have noticed that this framework is definitely human-centric. That brings us to the second premise, which is the equality of all species. By all means, it is absolutely outdated to maintain the idea of "human superiority" on all non-human species in the current times. As materialists, we should realise that humans evolved at the same time as other species, are dependent on the ecosystem, and that there is no fundamental variable that we have to consider as a criteria for ranking in an abstract "order of things".
That said, the equality of all species doesn't automatically mean the disappearance of inter-species violence. Firstly, we cannot stop unnecessary violence between fellow living beings that don't share our means of communication (unless we exerce physical control over them, but that's even worse). Secondly, there is an assumption that only humans possess the ability to choose to follow a vegan diet, which is extremely strange considering that it makes humans the only specie to have the capacity to be moral. Either non-human animals are excused for their chauvinistic violence against other species because they are seen as too limited, determined by their instinct, but it makes humans actually morally superior to other species. Or the animals must be held accountable for inter-species violence, which no vegan upholds, thankfully. Last option would be to consider that inter-species violence is part of life, which I agree with and think is the materialistic approach, but that means there is no reason to adopt a vegan diet.
Conclusion
So what does that let us with? Morality being a social construct with a material use in a human society, and humans being fundamentally empathetic, it is completely understandable that society will be progressing towards diminishing meat consumption to allow the minimization of animal suffering. But the exploitation of animals as means of food production doesn't have a materialistic reason to go away (unless we're talking about climate change, of course). The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like any other.
This is mostly why I would discourage pushing people to abandon all animal products in the name of ethics. What should be encouraged is acceptance of every specific diet, be it religious diets, or animal-liberation diets. Strict vegetarianism must be a choice of heart that is based on profound empathy, not a superior moral choice or, worse, a moral imperative.
Just a stupid thought I had
Need to vent caus dying from cringe is definitely a possibility. Can't disclose too many details but basically they are big time anti-China propaganda propagators, literally fingers on the left hand of imperialism. I really don't want to dunk on them because they're sweet, humanly, so I'm just gonna not say much... but literally hiding isn't really an option since I already did defend our boi against them
