Egalitarian

@egality.bsky.social

Followers

176

Following

926

Posts

An egalitarian. Rob the rich, feed the poor. Violence is justifiable; question is always whether it was or not.

Posts Replies Media

This country deserves to burn, may there not even be ash left after.

This website is nothing but fiscally conservative Democrats patting themselves on the back for supporting genocide, but knowing it’s wrong, so that makes them morally superior... That’s it. That’s this entire user base. Fuck this site.

Had they simply charged Trump with “inciting a riot” instead of bullshit trumped up charges like “insurrection” or whatever the fuck, there’d be no appeal reviewed by the Court, and no decision mentioning the word “immunity.” This was a setup.

You know what’s nuts? These people are trying to treat the symptom by doing what causing the disease. Yeah, we are so fucking doomed.

The energy I'm getting from a lot of people here is the same energy I felt 2016 when Trump got elected. And you know what happened? Trump got 3 justices on the supreme court. We can actually prevent him from doing more of that this time.

I feel like people don’t realize this: “recycling” as an individualist obligation was a scam to avoid collective action and accountability; it was a way to harm activists, and protect business and the ruling class. It made sure the problem couldn’t be address.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Reply to

Prisonculture

I see that the SC opened the door for MORE criminalization of the houseless. But many of us have been seeing how this has been happening locally for years. The SC can't criminalize the houseless, OUR LOCAL POLITICIANS & POLICY MAKERS have been and will. We need to FIGHT THEM.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

in a 6-3 decision, scotus today ruled that the rich may hunt the poor for sport and that the poor do not have standing to sue when maimed nor their families when victims succumb to their mortal wounds. justice clarence thomas wrote in the court’s decision “i’ll see you at dinner later harlan.”

There’s an ocean between “lesser evil voting” and “vote blue” nonsense, and voting for communists and only communists. The idea of “not voting at all” is actually closer to the former than the latter. Much of the rhetoric pretends otherwise.

This is so insane, and they don’t even know it’s insane. “Can’t trust the legislature” so we must trust… the most overtly and intentionally reactionary branch instead? No other way to put that except insane.

because that same principle also was responsible for ending segregation, miscegenation laws, and upholding every substantive due process right of the last 100 years, and you can't trust a fucking legislature to do that instead.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Reply to

J.J.

Alito announcing his opinion from the bench as Trump is drone striked. I'm just saying, it's possible.

Everything was always a local fight, and we have not been fighting.

now that they've fully defanging federal regulators, ensuring ANY attempt at reform is bogged down in perpetual legal bog, the corporatists and fascists can shift their cooperative focus toward crushing the last vestiges of state rights everything is a local fight now

People really do think that “lesser evil voting” is a little innocent harmless thing. It’s not. It’s a very significant harmful thing. I don’t know how to get that through to people who aren’t thinking about it rationally.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

When Biden said "We finally beat Medicare," it wasn't a gaffe. He was saying the quiet part out loud. His brain is such Play-Doh that he accidentally tells the truth sometimes.

Joe Biden Is Privatizing Medicarejacobin.com The Biden administration is expanding Donald Trump’s Medicare privatization scheme that is forcing hundreds of thousands of seniors onto for-profit health plans.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Me? I'm an originalist. I don't believe the Supreme Court should have judicial review.

To the Dem Liberals, “democracy” means “just one guy, winning or losing, all or nothing.” To everyone else, this should obviously seem to be the exact opposite, but somehow, everybody is falling for the bullshit, again.

Voting for Genocide Joe to “protect” the Court (lol) does absolutely nothing to protect any of the rights we’ve lost, or are about to lose. It’s literally a non-factor, does nothing at all. “Judicial Review” needs to be “abolished” by the other branches. Dems aren’t currently even considering it.

The “Great Man” Theory of History dates back to the 1840s (just before Karl Marx’s Manifesto). That’s how far back you have to go, to tap into an ideology that supposes it fucking matters who wins the U.S. presidency. It’s the class structure of society that actually matters. Biden/Trump doesn’t.

Through sheer repetition of a lie, they have convinced many of you that this is a reasonable, sane position…and I must point out that it’s actually an irrational and insane position. This is not a position that actually makes sense, it just feels familiar, because it’s repeated often, that’s all.

If Biden literally shat himself during one of the debates, his opponent would still be the guy openly vowing to send federal troops to take over cities, set up mass detention camps, and imprison his critics. The only sane position would still be Team Pants Shitter.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Reply to

AMANDA TRAP HOUSE 🐢

Nah. You have to be a true believer in the Great Man theory of world history to believe any of that. Truth is, it doesn’t matter if Biden or Trump wins.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Reply to

Saeed Jones

After all those “lesser of two evils” and “have fun in the camps!” replies I’ve been getting for months for sharing news updates and criticizing an UNPOPULAR US-funded genocide, it’s quite something to see many of those same people begging Biden to drop out. Welcome to the party, I guess.

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Literally Ezra Klein rn

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Reply to

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa

Genocide is fine, they draw the line at halting vocal delivery.

The root of rightwing ideology is *supremacy* and its particulars don’t matter as much as the general concept that some “deserve” or “merit” rulership over their inferiors, and the lessers need to “submit” to their “betters,” the “superiors.” This manifests over all kinds of “identities.”

The U.S. (it’s government AND its people) have spent 100 years going hard against communists and socialists—bullying, ostracizing, smearing, ruining lives, and in some cases incarcerating or killing them—to the point where there’s essentially none left…and wondering: why is everything so rightwing?!

Reposted by

Egalitarian

Reply to

Egalitarian

“Fiscal conservatism” is rightwing ideology implemented fiscally. That’s what it is. People think it’s just about “balanced budgets” but that’s not at all what it’s really about. If rightwing ideology has a position, “fiscal conservatism” has a policy for it.

And I was obviously correct in predicting that “fiscal conservatism” would be an ideology this person felt the need to protect, and the motivation to get the who causality backwards. Well, who could have predicted that? (Me. I could predict it Every time.)

Y’all keep looking for the magic identity that causes this, but it’s not merry one aspect of identity. It’s rightwing ideology, and specifically “fiscal conservatism” that’s the core problem, but that’s probably part of you own ideology, so you’ll say that it’s “males” or whatever.

The rightwing needs to dominate, control, and abuse women. Yes, that’s absolutely true. But it needs to do that because it’s rightwing, not because it’s “male.” What’s rightwing is always male, what’s male is not always rightwing. This is very simply categorical error on your part.

Anti abortion, anti sex education, anti contraception, monitoring periods in athletes and so on and so on None of that is explained by “fiscal conservatism”. Just because a truth is unpalatable to you doesn’t negate its validity The need to dominate, control and use women really is a thing!

This is still backwards in terms of causality. I’m not saying there’s no relation. I’m saying that “maleness” doesn’t drive rightwing ideology, but rightwing ideology drives toxic masculinity. This is obviously correct, if you take a minute to think.

That’s not what the research reveals. Misogyny goes hand in hand far-right extremism. It is a core value You cannot ignore the huge gender disparity within far right groups Nor the huge importance the far right of the Republican Party is placing on delivering laws that harm women….👇🏻

Maleness doesn’t drive far-right terrorism. People have to really twist themselves up to get to that conclusion. It’s completely backwards. Right ideology drives radicalization of males. It’s “fiscal conservatism” driving rightwing ideology more broadly.

Why is this so gendered? It is reflected in most far right protests too, where men FAR outnumber women. Isn’t it time we stopped looking just at race/poverty/religion as drivers of far-right terrorism in the Western world, and address the uncomfortable fact that maleness drives it too? Then ask why?

Is there a way to block everyone with a particular hashtag or word in their bio?