PZK

Good read. But I don't necessarily agree with the correlation of admiring defeat as a direct connection to Christianity, but rather the way the west is conditioned to find a way to win. If some Socialist movement failed, it is glorified in its failure because the hyper competitive West must extract some kind of victory. To utterly lose is to potentially admit eternal defeat and abandon a path as impossible, so already downtrodden Western leftists are keen to extract a moral victory or sense of heroic martyrdom.

Also much of what would account for leftist celebration of these failures, is actually Liberals co-opting historic evidence. For example I interpret the celebration of non-violent means that have yet to produce any revolution as simply Liberalism. If one would cheer on the status quo while dreaming of a slightly more perfect utopia, then they are going to romanticize the people that fought for a better future, only to be "cut down by reality". Liberals celebrate these people for their ideas but not their actions, unless of course their actions accounted for nothing. If they ennoble a failed leader or idea, it is because they want to celebrate the status quo crushing those who would challenge it, but admire their "heart being in the right place". Or Liberals interpret the fallen hero or movement's actions as a means for reinforcing the challenged status quo, as opposed to changing it.

It does explain some level of psychological copium that is used by Western leftists to glorify defeat, but I don't think it is the driving force behind the defeat itself. I would presume the reason Socialism doesn't get off the ground in the West is the lack of material challenge that it's populations experience by benefiting from their imperialism. No collectives form from a need for survival unlike the East and Global South that are subjected to imperialism and poverty. For these regions, Socalism is a source of strength. While for the West, Socialism is an aesthetic or higher moral purity, which is the reason it never goes anywhere. It isn't seen through the lens of survival, but often just contrarian rejection or individualistic rebellion of a system that isn't serving that persons best interests.

Though I absolutely agree with your sentiment that these ineffective tactics are hammered into children at a young age to be admired for their virtue and lack of results. But I would regard that as institutions of capital protecting themselves from any future overthrow, not because "it was what Jesus would do".

Imagine if Hamas used their power...

Imagine pretending to not know how power works, but advocate the opposite argument for Israel.

"...stop politicizing an issue troubling to many, myself included."

Of all the crap I see and hear politicians do, seeing them whine about things being "political" is next level absurd. ITS YOUR FUCKING JOB TO BE POLITICAL.

It would be easy to denounce the individual after learning more about who he was, but this crocodile-tears approach tells me she knew who he was before (or doesn't care) and is just upset she got caught worshiping him. Here, I can write a better half-assed, passive voice coverup for her:

"I was not aware of the individual's past and it was not communicated to the other MP's. I do not condone or support the individual's past actions and I apologize for for my part in celebrating their presence. This was a mistake on the part of this governing body that should have been better communicated to us. I believe I speak for all MP's that we openly denounce Nazism, and the individuals responsible."

In the decades before 2016, Trump's hot mic incident would have been lethal to any politician. It doesn't seem like much in hindsight because he ended up winning, but the Republican party was panicking and scrambling for an alternate candidate.

In a way, it ended up creating a lot of the political climate in the United States today. Republicans realized doubling down often was a viable strategy and have done it ever since. It also added to Trump's mystique, that he could buck the established norms to such a degree, that it convinced many chuds that anything was possible if they were a big enough asshole.

It was probably a major source of my radicalization, because the fact that he won in spite of it lead me to believe that optics were not the only thing going on with politics. It made me pay attention and figure out why this would happen and why it didn't matter.

The same people who defend the idea of meritocracy will also defend nepotism and inheritance as legitimate forms of success.

Reaction videos are an occasional guilty pleasure of mine. But I avoid channels that are explicitly about "reactions" because as UlyssesT said, they end up all being the same reaction to different things.

I do genuinely enjoy seeing people be excited and happy. But so much of that "industry" is fake. People either go over the top or provide nothing in addition.

I think some niche youtube channels are fun, but it certainly is becoming a bore. If I had to guess, it probably is from everything being localized to a handful of websites and those are in turn optimized by an algorithm for profit instead of something enjoyable. The internet has been turned into what is addictive instead of fun.

My personal theory is that we are so detached from joy that many find "reaction videos" a source of amusement because we can't feel excitement ourselves anymore, so people vicariously enjoy something "new" by watching someone else be very excited and happy about it.

I only really partake in interacting with people I don't know on Hexbear, and anything else I leave exclusive to people I know in real life.

Its a fantastic reservoir of knowledge at your fingertips, but a terrible and inhuman way to interact with other humans. Much nuance and body language is not seen, and people essentially develop the same kind of anonymous rage they feel when driving a car except it is in front of a computer screen.

After he was directly criticized for his love of slavery in spite of it's increasing worldwide recognition as a moral evil.

This would create quite an evil mouse. I imagine the risk here is that the mouse would break free and run away with the ring and bring it to Sauron.

Edit: Someone already beat me to it.

Pretty insane advice if have reached a point where you are telling people to skip what is probably the most important and often cheapest meal of the day.

Beyond this, it also attempts to trap people into buying more fast food to make up for the lost calories from breakfast, which have a higher chance of coming from a homemade source instead of lunch or dinner.

Remember, it will be the voter's fault in the end if the democratic leaders don't get what they want.

Whatever is necessary to make it die.