Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rippounet

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,871 profile views
  1. 'twas a joke, these are parodies.
  2. You've obviously never met Super Dupond and Soeur Marie-Thérèse.
  3. That theoretical is unlikely to say the least. Marxism pretty much helped create what we call feminism. In a similar way, racial studies ("decolonial" studies here) alwas presented minorities as the most exploited workers of the capitalist structure, and the socialists originally helped defend and organize immigrants (as the most vulnerable group within the proletariat). Point is, it's actually extremely rare for the far-right to delve into redistributive ideas, quite the opposite. Here in France, Le Pen briefly flirted with the idea and then quickly got rid of it (in a rather spectacular way too). It's easy to see why. First the far-right bases its approach on "traditional" "family values" according to which the woman belongs at home raising the kids, so any progressive idea about gender roles will be rejected outright. As far as socio-economics go, the far-right's approach is always hierarchical, and the racial/cultural/civilisational hierarchy it spreads is reflected in the capitalist pyramidal structure. Another way of saying it is that the far-right is all about legitimising inequality, certainly not reducing it. Any noise it makes about "justice" or "social justice" only seeks to reaffirm some form of hierarchy: to be clear, it often seeks to put the white worker above the immigrant worker, and in doing so reaffirms their status as workers, as instruments rather than agents. On the other hand, it's actually quite common for identity politics to limit themselves to a single aspect of inequality while ignoring broader redistributive issues. In other words, there are forms of "liberalism" that do not question the socio-economic structure and even, to some extent, condone or validate it. It's no accident that European right-wing politicians regularly embrace some "liberal" ideas (like forms of affirmative action in France): they know the value of appearing progressive, they know that image and discourse often speak louder than actual actions. With all due respect, that's a lot of bullshit. I'd say every single one of these sentences is wrong or misleading. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to defend (on any level) a wildly unequal society as "Christian." I personally think it's slightly more accurate to call Jesus a communist than a socialist, as long as we define communism through philosophy, but that's really semantics. What's clear is that if we project our 21st century paradigms on Jesus, he comes out a leftist and anti-capitalist. I'm pretty sure I could run a political campaign as a democratic socialist using modernised quotes from the New Testament.
  4. Holy shit dude, could you be any more provocative? Certainly, some forms of liberalism are actually not on the left, and conversely, some forms of "leftism" are not actually liberal. But you can't simplify any of that shit, and you can't just accuse people of being self-interested hypocrites. Quite the contrary, it is more productive to understand where people are coming from. One can question whether some forms of liberalism actually address issues without insulting people. Instead of presenting identity politics as the product of neo-liberalism, it could be more interesting -imho- to wonder whether it isn't neo-liberalism that corrupts and constrains activism. Or even, whether it isn't the media's perspective that hurts activism in order to prevent it from successfully questioning the dominant socio-economic order, by presenting it as entitlement or self-interest. In which case, you're the one falling into a trap here, by attacking people with whom you probably agree on many levels.
  5. Guys, I'm pretty sure it's Filoni. This, 100%. And unfortunately The Bad Batch feels headed the same way. I could be wrong, and perhaps they expedite the current plotline rather than spending the entire first season on it, but I highly doubt it. Also, it doesn't help that I don't like
  6. I completely agree with this assessment. Considering how dramatic the situation is getting, and considering the fact that solar panels aren't as "green" as one might think, there's no way to transition to a carbon-neutral energy without nuclear production. I think it just can't be done. The two problems you'll have on this thread is - You won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced. There's just too many people who hate nuclear energy - and unfortunately, they're not wrong. - Most of our governments don't have serious plans to transition ; best case scenario, they're throwing money at the problem hoping it'll do some good. But most of the time, governments are busy pandering to interest groups more than working for the long-term common good. They're reluctant to openly attack the most polluting activities and industries, even though that should have been done yesterday. My very personal conclusion is that paradoxically one random well-informed dude on the internet can easily come up with a better plan that anything that's actually being implemented, because random dude will not have to listen to the wrong people. Also the reason why I think that at some point, true democracy will be the only reasonable path.
  7. Abraham Lincoln, vampire hunter surely deserves an honorable mention.
  8. Finished season 2 of Solar Opposites last night. Needless to say it still feels like discount Rick & Morty, but somehow this second season felt good... Save the finale imho - that I didn't like. Like in season 1, the episode centered on the wall was pretty good. I wouldn't say Solar Opposites is great, but it's still a decent, entertaining show, that every now and then lands a great moment.
  9. Oh, I forgot The VelociPastor. Haven't actually watched this one, but I do believe it deserves a spot in this thread:
  10. I can't believe it's already been three hours and no one's mentioned Sharknado. And for people who like Sharknado, there's also Sand Sharks, Sharktopus, Arachnoquake, Zombeavers, Piranhacona or Lavalantula... Also, Black Sheep. Or, Rubber. Y'all got no culture. I'm seriously disappointed.
  11. Well, his approval rating is at 37% with 60% disapproval. 73% think he's the "president of the rich." The reason why it seems like he gets a free pass is because the media (and the people who own them) love him (throughout the West, not just in France). In the press it's said his popularity compares favorably to Sarkozy's (who wasn't reelected) and Hollande's (who didn't even try to be reelected). Almost everything you can read about the press these days is the media trying to save Macron's bid for reelection, and that includes pushing the idea that only him can save France from the fascists... which means giving a lot of attention to said fascists... It's lunacy. And of course, France's two-round presidential election means whoever reaches the second round against Le Pen is almost guaranteed to win (well, except if it's someone a bit too much to the left, but that's another problem). But I've seen at least one article in which one of his advisers openly said that he might give up, favoring one last round of "reforms" instead. To be clear, we're talking one massive round of austerity programs here, supposedly to make up for the "Covid debt." Macron is trying to have his cake (destroying public service a bit more) and eating it too (being relected).
  12. This probably belongs here (?): https://www.foodandwine.com/news/uk-pubs-research-job?utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR3VNxCn6126bjLnUxKUzp_ownwOvmnKmYJhMvNDRrYMan0ERgYKBqJti50 Didn't remember a pub could be called a "watering hole" ... I do remember from my youth that 5 pints isn't much for a Brit' on a pub crawl though...
  13. It does, as BigFatCoward explains: Thanks. And in my opinion, they do, because in a civilised society, police officers are not judge, jury, and executioner upon arriving on a scene. The case presented by Alarich is the polar opposite of Bryant's. In this case, it seems [it doesn't exactly matter if this isn't exactly what happened, as such cases happen all the time] that the police officers had incorrect information and on top of that didn't correctly assess the situation. But because they were not trained to use lethal force as their primary means of action, they wounded the suspect instead of killing him.
  • Create New...