Barx

And Florida is very flat where it will be hitting. And a lot of the area that would otherwise absorb the water and act as a buffer is now developed and unable to do so.

This is a lesson that should be part of every group that tries to agitate among students.

NEVER accept promises for future action, let alone promises to "consider" a demand at some point in the future. You must have concessions in-hand or you have nothing. Even in that case there would be attempts to walk it back, but you can at least maintain your organizations in the meantime.

Accepting early mealy mouthed false concessio a only destroys your attempt at organizing in exchange for literally nothing.

Also, be wary of "concessions" that are really just PR moves they would have done anyways to save face.

These are things that must be taught and agreed to as early as possible in the organizing phase. They should be part of every person's understanding of what you are fighting for and when you would ever consider reducing pressure. Otherwise you will leave yourself vulnerable to opportunists. They will literally take over.

Bellingcat has dubious funding and Evans hangs out with feds. There is a blurry area between being an actual fed and being supported by feds because you are helpful to their cause despite being a true believer is the weirdest Western leftism on the menu. Though the distinction doesn't matter all that much.

"This lake is on private property, punk."

Russia wearing kid gloves with Ukraine is one of the things where my prediction ended up completely wrong and yet the libs in my life still prefer the dominant "Russians are just bloodthirsty orcs" narrative rather than rubbing it in my insufferable face.

When the empire is targeting a designated enemy that undermines the empire, it will deploy constant propaganda against that target.

Those who want to see the end of the empire will then need to take time to explain why the target is not uniquely bad, the criticisms are largely false, etc etc. Otherwise you're just helping manufacture consent for the targeting of that country.

This is the kind of "support" socialists should provide. Push back on Russophobia, collective punishment, the US war machine, support for NATO, and false histories of what's happened in Ukraine and Syria.

Yes yes yes let them fight

That Yemen "aid" is going to NGOs and food that sits and rots on ships blockaded by the US.

The dating app is the gulag, comrade

I kinda want to try NixOS as my main OS but was worried about needing to reinstall after any potential fork. I see that there was recently a fork and the person previously at the top resigned. Does anyone have a sense for whether it makes more sense to use NixOS, the fork (auxolotl), or just wait for a bit and see where things go?

It's ridiculous but also it gets me like $2 off of $10 of items where I already got a $1 coupon for an item being late and then $4 off with their other promotional bullshit. So basically I spent $3 on items that would've cost me $25 on Amazon which is not too bad. Plus it reminds me to watch Canada and the US get beaten in soccer lmao.

As a concept it is pretty fucked, though. I think it probably creates shopping addictions for a lot of people.

This is where you are wrong. They are more than just a set of ideals. They are also a set of binding international treaties.

Not all countries are signatories and, of course, it doesn't matter if you say it's binding, what matters is if it's actually followed. Even the basics of the UN charter are constantly violated, as well as the human rights outlined in later declarations. The countries I talked about earlier that weaponize the concept for violence and their own gain never suffer any consequences from violating these agreements. This is because it's power and leverage that dictate what actually happens. Power and leverage are tools.

No disagreement there, other than you should be careful not tot throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There's no baby. The purpose of a thing is what it does. Not what we are told it does. What it actually does. It is a common mistake to believe that the purpose of a thing is to do what it has never done.

The concept of human rights has never done anything remotely like this, nor have the declarations of the UN. They are used, almost exclusively, as a weapon of nation states, usually from oppressor nations to justify their oppression of other nations via legalese. Every major human rights NGO has been part of this process, they help manufacture consent for the targeting of other countries and then sometimes put up an ignored complaint when the violence really starts to hit. Try to define the concept of human rights descriptively rather than prescriptively based on how it's been used internationally and by its inconsistent application.

If we use the descriptive approach, then applying human rights to the global economy, a claim that is so vague as to be almost meaningless, we arrive back at the conclusion that it's indistinguishable from how the status quo works. Rich, militarized, violent countries cynically wielding the concept for their own ends and only applying consequences for violating it to their targets. A set of nations more or less immune from the ICC and ICJ. International trade systems controlled by a few imperialist countries extracting from the global south. This is what your "tool" currently does re: the global economy, as international law. Ask yourself: what would actually change and why?

Similarly, considering it to be a tool implies it can be used to accomplish something. Let's say a person comes up to you and they say they agree with the astoundingly ignorant academics in these articles. They want to create a new economy based on human rights. Then they ask you, "how do I help?"

What do you tell them, how does the approach differ from the status quo, and how will it ever be sufficient to overcome the fundamental economic and military forces aligned against you?