Robaque

Recognising mass-immigrantion as non-ideal can be valid if coming from a place of compassion. But with this perspective, mass-immigration is seen as a symptom of wider socioeconomic problems (or non-societal factors such as natural disasters), not as a problem in itself that needs to be "fixed" by sending immigrants "back home".

Furthermore, seeing immigration as a cause for socioeconomic problems only comes from a place of racism, ascribing negative expectations to people according to their country of origin / culture / ethnicity. It is clear that you stand with this camp from how you phrased what you think "the left" thinks:

"Immigration is good from any country in the world and if you have any reservations what so ever you're racist".

It implies that a person's country of origin plays a factor in whether or not they can be considered a "good" immigrant. That's racist.

...and it was all a dream.

Such is class war in the 21st century

Peertube?

Is noone else gonna point out the absurdity that if the guy had been 1 year older, legally speaking there would've been nothing wrong?

The problem here is the grooming (which I think it's worth noting that adults can be victims of as well), the abuse of power dynamics, and particularly in this case the exploitation of another's inexperience for personal gratification.

But the article instead focuses on how the kid was "affected" by the teacher's "criminal actions", but then essentially just describes the kinds of consequences caused by the social stigma of student-teacher relationships. But this also happens in university, where it also carries negative social consequences, but not legal ones.

My point is simply that the legal system is a flimsy caricature of morality/ethics, and in articles like these it really shows.

The deregulation march you're talking about is neoliberalism, and it hasn't just affected USA. And in a sense neoliberalism is capitalism's response to regulation.

It's not that regulation doesn't work per se, it's that the (political) hierarchy through which it functions is susceptible to being taken advantage of, and inevitably it will be (*has been) taken advantage of by the capitalist class to protect their economic hierarchy.

For democracy to truly represent the people it'd need to be federated from the ground up through free association. Large scale organisation and cooperation would be ephemeral, existing when/if the need arises and dissolving as soon as projects are concluded (or cancelled). But within the rigidity of the current system(s), where power is consolidated at the 'top' through processes we're lead to believe are necessary for 'order' (when their real purpose is of course control), horizontal forms of social organisation seem impossible (I like how Anark calls this - "hierarchical realism").

Capitalist realism mindset

Communism is by definition moneyless

But yes anarchy is less prescriptive

Personally though I'm sceptical that money can be without hierarchy, or that the distinction between necessities and luxuries is all that meaningful, since it's all very relative

cyberpunk af

~~Extreme~~ capitalism stifles and suffocates innovation and preservation.

It's an inherent contradiction of capitalist competition. Somehow everyone is supposed to be competitive but noone is supposed to win for capitalism to "work". Otherwise it's considered a monopoly and "anti-competitive".

Ironically this requires collaboration.