• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Yukle

  • Rank
    The Time That Was Once Upon
  • Birthday 07/31/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    My head is forever in the clouds.
  • Interests
    Imagining, learning, wondering, sharing and loving.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,546 profile views
  1. You're right about this. It highlights that poverty is usually a repeating cycle that is very hard to break out of. Black people are over-represented in poverty stats because most black Americans' parents and grandparents faced impoverishing discrimination within their lifetimes. Segregation ended, certainly, but it didn't come with a cheque to also eliminate the living conditions at the same time. So poor black people, whose lives were bitterly ruined by unfair unemployment, lack of opportunity and so on had their children grow up without the institutionalised racism... but not the funds to put them through school. Or the education to get a high-paying job to get those funds. So it's not so much that they're black, it's that their ancestors were. A different story played out for white families. They were in manufacturing, their jobs went and they hadn't the education or means to break the crippling poverty that now faced them. Their children can't easily break from poverty either. The USA is multicultural and has been since its foundation (although not always by choice) and, as a separate issue beyond race, ethnicity or culture, it is crippling its middle-class into deeper and deeper poverty. It's not just that wealth isn't being distributed, it's that all of the tools needed to develop and grow - paved roads, functioning schools even clean water - aren't functioning because taxes aren't being paid. Perhaps the most dangerous but clever ideology ever propagated by the rich is the lie that governments cannot be trusted. Why do so many rich white men encourage you to ignore the government, to fight the system, to neglect voting because they're all liars, to withhold taxes and so on? Because they own the government. It works to their interests and your apathy is essential. Government is the only check against them controlling wealth they could otherwise be forced to share, and it's for their own sake that they don't want you to empower governments to act as a means against oligarchies forming. Perhaps the most telling statistic: for all of their bluster about how you should ignore the government, millionaires are the most reliable people to vote in the USA.
  2. Ouch! But meticulously accurate. I think that The Big Bang Theory is a huge contributing factor to misogyny because it normalises abhorrent behaviour. It acts as though it's the norm for all men - even those not seen as traditionally "masculine" - to treat women as sexual conquests, with little intelligence and whose lives are beneath contempt.
  3. It's also extremely and horrifically stupid when women take that side. That lady whose name I don't respect enough to look up from the Big Bang Theory showed exactly why she is comfortable acting on the most misogynistic show on TV with her garbage about women bringing it on themselves.
  4. Let's not forget Trump's crush and her husband, Ivanka and Jared, were using a private email server EARLIER THIS YEAR. Still pissed off that's already out of the news cycle. Seriously, America, this is why we in the rest of the world are laughing at you. We know that for a majority of you it's not your fault, but seriously, your president is a clown!
  5. You mean like the right to buy and sell people as property, or consider them only 3/5 of a person for census purposes?
  6. I can totally see that, now you mention it.
  7. I do, although I sometimes wear two. I'm a C, though, so not exactly holding back a large dam wall.
  8. Meanwhile, interesting happenings in Victoria, where euthanasia laws are probably about to pass: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-20/euthanasia-debate-continues-all-night-in-victorian-parliament/9068488
  9. This is well put. It expresses the point well: you cannot say that anybody can reasonably predict the future with accuracy. If it was so easy for Americans to know when they wrote the Second Amendment what guns would soon become, then it stands to reason that we should already know in advance which seemingly normal technology we have now is about to change the world in ways that will leave it unrecognisable in a generation.
  10. ... I'm not sure how to take you seriously any more.
  11. How come, in your mind, the "government" and "the people" are not the same thing in a Republic? It's not like you live in a dictatorship - you can change what rights are, and dictate them yourself. But applying them to a society-wide level requires government. Government is a social collective for organising the state. You're part of it, you know.
  12. I don't disagree that they had automatic weapons, they were probably even used during the war with Britain. I disagree that they understood their capacity for danger and destruction. That was not widely understood at the time we're discussing. I disagree that you can say that they anticipated their technological development and future usage. You were responding to this comment: ... which I also disagree with. Knowing that automatic weapons exist is not the same as knowing what they can do. And, as I point out above, there is no way that the USA of the time knew how dangerous such guns were because the great powers of WWI were shocked at the effectiveness of machine guns when deployed en masse. It took more than two years to have any working solution against them; indeed the Russian Empire originally dismissed them as using ammunition too quickly and were caught out when the German Empire used them against their positions. You cannot reasonably say that the Second Amendment was written with the full understanding of how personal arms would develop in future. They probably had it in mind but nowhere near the scale of what would happen.
  13. Disagreed; they would have been unparalleled military geniuses if they recognised in advance what automatic weapons could be used for. This hadn't even been properly figured out by the outbreak of the First World War, decades later. The sheer destructive powers of machine guns just weren't understood, and it horrified Europe en masse to witness the scale of damage machine guns caused (because, of course, they were fine when they were used against Indigenous people but horrified when they saw what they actually did to their own people). And sure, the founding fathers believed being armed was an inalienable right. But they also did not have a standing army, because that was the role of state militia. So it was stupid in their minds to leave their men (only men) undefended when they were the only thing preventing invasion. They were meant to be able to rally at a moment's notice. You must either toss out what they did in their time or accept it, picking and choosing to defend something on the basis of it being written by the "founding fathers" doesn't work with a piecemeal approach. You can say that something they did is worthy of merit on its own, but not simply because some dead people said it. Otherwise, you must also take as gospel the fact that a black man is 2/3 of a white man, that women cannot vote and that the Electoral College is meant to be allowed to exercise discretion that ignores the will of the voters.
  14. Here is where the media cannot afford to keep letting the ball drop. I know that investigations are expensive, but Trump claimed he mailed letters of condolence but "They weren't sent until today, maybe Tuesday they'll be sent." This is flat out bullshit. News outlets must follow this up. Contact the families and have them show the post mark on the letters - we know full well that they won't have been posted until well after Trump claims because he hadn't done them yet. Or, more likely, they'll never come at all. Wait a week and then post the story, "TRUMP LIED: HE NEVER SENT LETTERS TO GOLD STAR FAMILIES." Be really explicit, none of this "his misled" stuff. Be really explicit: it's a lie when he doesn't tell the truth. He intentionally does it. Run that story into the ground, prove that he doesn't care one iota for the military. Have military veterans front and centre, explaining their PTSD, their disabilities and the means of support they need. Have them explain in their own words that they've nothing to do with the NFL kneeling, that they have real problems of their own. And then run the story in Puerto Rico - where military veterans are a disproportionate percentage of their population. They're probably the most reliable recruiting ground for America's armed forces and look how Trump treats them. That's the story the media must run: for some reason Republicans have a monopoly on veteran issues even though they're utterly despicable when it comes to helping them. Hell, their spineless politicians allowed McCain to be trashed rather than stick up to a bombastic rapist.
  15. As a non-American I can still recall the backlash movement on Twitter saying, "It's called the WHITEhouse." Racism was central to the anti-Obama campaign, from questioning whether he was even born in the USA to labelling the ACA as "Obamacare" as a rallying point against it. Red states hated Obama, because he represented their worst fears: an educated and successful young black man (shame he wasn't a woman who also spoke Spanish). It's no accident that Trump keeps trying to undo Obama's legacy. Partly, his ideology is informed by the racism that drove him to demand a birth certificate, and question how a black man could become President. And it's also a maypole for his voters to dance around: "Look! I am undoing what the black guy did!" This is supported by the fact that the areas of the USA that Trump swung from the Democrats are not as ethnically diverse as the coasts. They are areas like Pennsylvania and Michigan, where the white men can't believe that they allowed themselves to let a black man command their country on their watch. They held Obama to ridiculous standards that they'd never worry about from a white man (as Trump proves now), supposing that they could vote for Obama if he was a miracle worker but were prepared to turn against him if he made even one compromise or mistake. And by men, it is men: were the election down entirely to women then Clinton would have won in a crushing landslide.