Skip Navigation

Posts
3
Comments
160
Joined
1 yr. ago

Like if your vegan anarchist grandma and vegan anarchist dad were the same person.

I am an engineer (closer to toot toot then clicky clacky) cosplaying as a farmer in unceded aninstanabe territory in eastern ontario.

Pronouns: she/they

Maybe the real vegan theory club were the friends we made along the way ✨

  • So not criminal trial, but there was a trial and a determination by a jury.

    I know about the law suit but I thought the burden of proof was pretty different?

    You seem to be taken in by the idea that all unproven claims should be treated equally until tried in a court of law.

    No, that's not my thinking. I'm trying to understand why accusations are treated differently for different people and, if done by people in support of a political party, does this cause fractions within the party?

    I know if there was an election happening where I live and the leadership and members of a political party called women coming forward with accusations a liar, I would wonder how safe I would be to report problematic behavior if it happens to me?

  • So like once they win the primary they can't be kicked out for that election (and if successful, term)?

    That's wild.

  • I don't know who that is but Trump hadn't been found guilty in criminal court right? Except for falsifying records?

    How do people say Trump is a sex criminal but that other accused people deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? It implies that only victims of the opponent are to be believed. Which implies that only some people deserve to be believed, as a function of how useful that accusation is.

    If the response to this is "it's obvious Trump is guilty", yeah no shit but if a fair trial is required before we hold the accused accountable, why is Trump's criminality constantly being referenced by politicians as proof of his untrustworthiness?

  • What makes this so hard for me to conceive isn't about the credibility of the accusations. This might be my boomer moment but I remember when even a whiff of scandal meant you were gone. How was the social media stuff unknown? Aren't these things looked at before people are endorsed? If a candidate failed to disclose social media accounts and then something came out, how are they not dropped for lying?

    I mean, this guy isn't an incumbent. A sitting MPP got kicked out of her racist ass party after having a meeting with Tommy Robinson. It was a secure seat (and the party kept it with a new MPP in the next election).

    It feels like the bar has shifted so far from "be squeaky clean" to "as long as you can introduce reasonable doubt".

  • Maybe what I need to understand the desire for respectability has been replaced with the desire to "stick it to the man".

    I can't wait for people to accuse those who withdraw support as being duped or being traitors. Believe women except when we don't 🤷‍♀️

    But more importantly, the "party" didn't select him. They want moderate insiders with 30 years of vetting and personal relationships with donors. The voters want outsiders who are willing to try to change things.

    What am I missing? I see senators are mostly D or R. Do the parties not put forth candidates? Do people just get to declare themselves candidates aligned with the party?

  • So I don't get all the mechanics of how US politics work but I don't understand how people can see this happening and still think the party who selected him as their candidate cares about winning the election.

    Don't come at me about presumption of innocence or accusing me of demanding perfection. I don't care about this man and what he's done. I'm shocked that the party who puts respectability above all else didn't drop him like hot potatoes after the first scandal.

  • "They can just Google me and they don't want the issues that it comes with being pulled up by communists, saying they have a Nazi working for them or the police showing up."

    Nathan Bull told the court he relies on welfare payments as he can't get employment.

    Fascinating.

  • Did I say there was no slavery pre colonization?

  • So what, your point that these types of problems existed in some form before colonization and that they exist in other places means that there is no way colonization made things worse? Both things can't be true?

    And I guess you weren't actually asking why people don't harp on the Aztecs because you don't actually care to learn?

  • Okay but that's not what I replying to.

  • I lol'd

  • Did I say these things did not exist before then?

  • I was directly replying to a statement you made. Did I misunderstand that statement?

  • Really ironic reply considering the post you were replying to didn't mention genocide or any particular reason it was better.

  • Land Back.

  • I see. There is no difference except for the differences.

    Like for instance the Aztecs were extremely brutal in wiping out other tribes and enslavement as well as torture but no one really complains about that today.

    In contrast to the Aztecs the colonial powers are still in power and are still enacting violence and genocide.

  • Fairly certain existing people didn't use resource extraction to fuel imperialism worldwide and invent and perpetuate the trans Atlantic slave trade, yes.

  • How fitting to start celebrations at Mount Rushmore, a desecration of stolen land.

  • I did a little searching and found a website that had all sorts of interesting info, but didn't dig into sources/validity etc. Apparently:

    • sometimes commoners would be recruited into joining the siege
    • it was common to plunder the countryside to starve the city
    • sometimes commoners got compensation for being plundered or harmed.