There will never be a perfect person to lead a progressive movement, there are only those imperfect people who take up the mantle. If ever you’re dissatisfied with your choices you should consider taking up the mantle yourself.

Bruh

You did not warn me that he was also cosplaying a sexy leather-bound version of Aang from Avatar The Last Airbender and I was not prepared.

When they clean themselves after you touch them they’re actually spreading your smell around, not trying to wash it off. If you watch closely you’ll see them alternate between licking the place you touched and licking various other places around their body.

Loosen control over women by controlling what women are allowed to wear because the clothing she wants to wear comes from a culture that controls what women are allowed to wear. Great job liberating women from having to make their own choices, you’re such a hero.

In case you’re genuinely curious and not trolling, I’ll explain. Parties in the US are not fixed around a particular ideology or set of stances, but have changed frequently throughout history and often take completely opposite positions from their past iterations. Many historians like to divide US political history into eras called party systems to indicate when parties are roughly cohesive and when they go through major changes, and during the civil war era we were in the Third Party System. During the third party system the Democratic party’s base was made up primarily of white southerners (though there were northern supporters as well) and after the civil war they fought against Reconstruction in order to uphold white supremacy (the only issue that united Democratic voters in the north and south at the time).

Though there isn’t consensus among historians yet, many consider us to be in the Seventh Party System now, so as you can imagine a lot has changed since then. I’ll let you do your own reading on that topic.

You (plural)

You’re lumping me in with a group I don’t identity with because you’re so dogmatic about your beliefs that you think anyone who contradicts them must be the enemy. I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t support the war and that I oppose imperialism and yet you keep arguing as if I am in support of it. You speak about Iranians as if they are hapless pawns unable to think for themselves, insisting that the only reason they would protest against their government is if foreign intelligence agencies directed them to, which is actually a very colonial and condescending mindset for you to have. For an anti-imperialist, you sure like to dismiss the agency of people who are themselves victims of imperialism.

You’re ridiculous. The people I support are the Iranian people themselves, who did in fact protest over women’s rights. Even if the goal of Mossad’s support for the protests was to destabilize Iran in preparation for the US invasion, that does not make the protesters “pro-NATO forces,” nor does it mean women’s rights are nothing but a pretense. While that’s certainly the case for Mossad, the protests were undeniably carried out by the Iranian people themselves to advance the cause of women’s liberation.

I never said I supported the invasion, you’re putting words in my mouth. I said women’s liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is. The US invasion of Iran is an act of imperialism intended to subjugate and exploit it, not an insurrection.

Two things can be true. Personally I think women’s rights are a great reason for insurrection.

Jeffries can shove his tax credits up his ass.

I’ve actually already seen this video, and it doesn’t change my stance. Iranian leadership has a choice in how they respond to foreign manipulation and they do not have to respond with repression of their own populace for fear of their adversaries taking advantage of social unrest when they could instead reduce social unrest by making concessions.

I agree with all of that except for the inevitability of repression in a society under siege. Yes, that is a historical trend, but it’s also a choice that leadership makes, and it’s the wrong one. If the Iranian government made concessions on women’s rights, queer rights, etc. while holding firm on national sovereignty it would reduce the level of negative polarization the Iranian people have towards their government giving Mossad less to work with to destabilize Iran.

But the protests for women’s liberation were real, and the Iranian regime shut off the internet during those protests in order to suppress them. Even if Mossad was involved in stirring up that unrest it does not justify the state crackdown, nor can it be denied that there is grassroots support for women’s liberation in Iran. If you want your country to be less susceptible to manipulation by foreign agents your best bet is to give the people what they want so that they aren’t negatively polarized against their government in the first place. Every injustice enforced is an exploitable weakness that your adversaries can seize upon.

Huh? Google is a corporation. Are they licking their own boots?

If you think people suck if they don’t behave like perfectly rational, unemotional robots 100% of the time and vote strategically for the sake of harm reduction after being insulted and told their lives don’t matter directly to their face then you must have a very cynical and bleak view of humanity as a whole.

When the message from Dems is “No, your family in Palestine has to die because AIPAC gave me a fat check. Vote for me or else Trump will be even worse, and if you don’t everything he does is your fault,” I can hardly blame people for responding irrationally, and blaming them is pointless anyway because it won’t change anything. When there is shared responsibility for something it’s your choice where to assign blame, and you should assign it somewhere useful.

I don’t think capitalism is new, even if the word itself was only coined in the 17th century. Private property has existed on small scales throughout nearly all of human history, but our current state of affairs where it is the dominant force in the global economy and the basis of nearly all trade is relatively new. Prior to the 16th century most commodity production was done by artisans, guilds, and subsistence farmers, not wage laborers. Agrarianism changed the property relation to land from one governed by custom and feudal obligation to one governed by market forces, and Mercantilism led to merchant traders forming corporations and becoming a power that can influence and rival that of monarchs. Even in the age of Mercantilism commodity production was still mostly done without wage labor, but the new companies that arose from that era eventually took over commodity production themselves through the enclosure of the commons, marking the beginnings of modern capitalism.

Stock markets are not fundamental to capitalism and that is most certainly not “the only correct definition,” given it’s not even a correct definition. The only element fundamental to capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and that can exist and has existed without stock markets. A capitalist economy is one in which private owners make a claim to a farm, factory, or any other means by which commodities are produced or service is rendered, employ wage laborers to produce commodities or provide a service (using tools, equipment, or even just a space that is privately owned), and collect the value of their labor in the form of profit while returning a small fraction to the workers in the form of wages. Stocks just divide ownership of the means of production into shares that can be bought and sold at prices tied to the speculative value of the corporation.

Alarm clocks are unfair to window knockers.

The question was about Hakeem making a divisive statement and OP sharing the reporting on it. Reporting on what someone else says is not an additional divisive statement, and downvoting the post for being divisive is just shooting the messenger. That’s the point I was making, you lecture the people informing others about what Hakeem said to stop being divisive when it’s Hakeem who made the divisive statement and should be lectured. It’s the same logical error a lot of liberals make when they blame voters for election losses instead of the candidates for failing to inspire people’s vote.