Ceos being scared for their life is a notable change IMO. Surveillance and repression are as usual.

That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.

But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.

I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?

You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.

Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.

That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.

Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.

Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.

Calling US leftists extremists is the funniest joke I’ve read today!

Truth is liberals are much more extremists than most leftists. At some point they will need to realise it and take responsibility for the shit they did for so long.

The liberals have to do their mea culpa, not the left. Right now it will soon be a matter of choosing a side : humanism or fascism. Until now the liberals always chose fascism and called the leftists dangerous extremists.

Choose a side liberals. You made the world what it is today. And you’re now blaming the leftists and asking them to support your insanity. That’s not how it works. Leftists know which side they are fighting for, and they will suffer the consequences. What about you liberals?

You know, if leberals wanted the support of the leftists, they try something called compromises. But the only compromises they’re ready to do is with the fascists unfortunately, which the leftists will never support.

So no, the leftists didn’t refuse to make compromises. The liberals did, with the left, because they actually accepted all the compromises with the fascists. And act now surprised that fascism is taking over.

Liberals are spoiled children incapable of taking accountability for their actions.

The thing is that in a polarised world you support one side or the other, and the sides are the US and China. US is certainly not better deserving support than China, but liberals will call tankie anyone who support China in any way, shape or form. For a liberal it’s completely inacceptable to say that China is doing anything better than the US.

That’s in theory. In practice it’s only used by liberals to insult leftist when they criticise the US or liberalism.

Exactly this! I’ve never seen the term used by anyone but liberals to taunt, attack or divert a debate.

There is no chance it wasn’t meant to be an open world. The witcher 3 was a very successful open world they made.

Also, CP77 actually is in the style of elden ring that was praised for it, but CP77 came long before it. Most critiques of CP77 missed that part because the game doesn’t throw it at your face.

But then the octopus would be able to open the jar.

Well, if capitalism could tolerate true journalism, journalists would be paid like managers.

I wish it was, but it isn’t. It usually about them being able to ban you from playing for whatever reason they deem worthy.

Horse archers, or skirmishing units in general, are countered by archers or siege units. Unless the game is wildly unbalanced it always works.

One exception to it : fascists managed to convince people who can only lose stuff to a war that it’s good for them too.

No, a language is not just a language. I fact, it’s a bunch of compilers. How many there are and the hardware they work on is what matters.

And as a matter of fact, rust isn’t as much of an industry standard as C++ is.

Your mistake is to consider an election is a rational competition. It’s not. Not anymore, because medias make it impossible to know the truth. So it is more like a football match. People have the team they support, and for most nothing will change their mind because there’s too much propaganda. When almost everything is propaganda, you get to choose the reality you “prefer”.

So the point of the campaign is more about convincing people to vote in order to defeat the opposing team. Or to persuade the other team to concede.

For the first, it can be women too. For misogyny it’s harder. But there is a trend currently to attract and radicalise women into conservatism too. The trad wives movement. I don’t remember the names but there are movement for spirituality and naturalism that are also linked to trad wives. That is also a slippery slope : first you hook them spirituality, and at the end you have JK Rowling who is an anti-trans activist.

Women and men are not in the same groups simply because conservatives are misogynistic so they like to separate men and women.

Overall it is a culture war lead by the far right.

It’s a slippery slope. First it’s either a community they can share anything with, or it is a subject dear to them that they see people give solution to. Then, slowly, one idea at a time, they get litteraly corrupted. Ideas are imprinted through repetition, values are suggested. Then, or before, you imprint the idea that the others are lying. This is key because it seed doubt in everything, but as he is closer from this group, this group get to imprint its own ideas through repetition alone. Distance is built with relatives so that the group is the only group he has. Then if he starts to disagree, he will be kicked, sometimes also punished, and he’ll be left alone, or at least he must be convinced of it. Once there radicalisation is a process that’s hard to stop.

Doubt, distrust, and a group to be with are the key ingredients. Liberalism is a fertile ground for this because it promotes individualism when humans are social creatures. So it’s very easy to find people in need of a social group that gives belonging. And racism makes the easiest pretense : you belong because of your blood, or because you’re born here.

For sexism, it’s mostly a reactionary backlash, and secondly this liberalism problem of promoting individualism to humans who seek belonging. Feminism did won, and the old way of treating women is being addressed. But it is a process, and while we know what’s bad, we don’t have much new examples to follow. Yet most people have been trained in the old way, so now they are at lost. It’s not the first reason why they’re alone, liberalism has this place, but it is far easier to blame it on women and feminism than to try to build a new society. And also, it again gives them belonging with men like them that understands them and give explanations and solutions to their problems. Not good ones, but that’s not the point.