"The Pope isn't responsible for the American Congress of Bishops banning trans healthcare" so the thing about the power of the Pope is that he could just overwrite them if BANNING ALL TRANS HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE ADULTS AND MINORS ALIKE was something he cared about
Moreover, ICE must be destroyed
Israeli forces assaulted a Palestinian shepherd while settlers stole his livestock in Al-Mughayyir, West Bank.
Basically, but there is a common tendency to moral anti-realism on the grounds that morals are supposedly nothing but an outgrowth of the mode of production. I think that certainly influences moral ideas in practice, but I don't think morality itself can be dismissed on that ground.
Can a journalist with press credentials ask JD Vance why he follows an account like this? Is this better or worse for the safety of the Jewish community than a college student wearing a keffiyeh?
yeah dude i'm not buying it
Average GOP Congressman: We err...uhhh...don't uh need uh...oversight of the DoD because uh...we trust the President to decide what's best
Donald Trump: I AM JESUS CHRIST RETURNED TO EARTH THE POPE ISN'T MAGA AND HE'S WEAK ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS I AM GOING TO BUILD A HOTEL ON THE MOON
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog A weird thing is that whenever I post criticism of Al, the majority of the people agreeing with me seem to be leftists. It's pretty much the only position I hold that seems to be more popular with the left than the right. It should be the opposite. My whole point about Al (especially Al in creative fields) is that it isn't human, it doesn't have a soul, and we cannot surrender our society to an unhuman soulless algorithm even if it makes our lives easier in some ways. It's very strange that an argument predicated on the existence of the soul resonates with the left while conservatives tend to scoff at it. 3:02 PM β’ Mar 12, 2026 β’ 748.5K Views
"for unknown reasons, my mortal enemies appear to be concerned with the core essence of humanity in a way that my allies are not. oh well, better not think about it too hard."
This whole thread is really worth reading, RE: the election in Hungary.
It at least has normative values, I think. I'd say Marxists can get somewhere by focusing on the psychology of people and how their class shapes their ethical ideas. But I think we can grant all that without being moral anti-realists
Rawls' stance is not that people would want fairness behind the Veil of Ignorance, but that what people would agree to behind the Veil would be fair by definition.
A lot to be said about politics in practice vs ideas of justice, but I don't think this works as a critique of Rawls. How would Machiavelli get anyone else behind the Veil of Ignorance to agree to his proposed prime number rule, for example? Also why would he assume he'd be the one with that number?
I know Marxism is fairly dismissive of ethics, but I have yet to hear a very convincing argument on that front. There's a lot of great analysis for how people's ethical ideas are born out of material conditions. I see lots about that. But all of our ideas come from our material conditions.
I am, and it is, and no, they don't
this is the most desperate for approval he's sounded imo
Absolutely egregious paraphrase
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmL...
Very happy to see this
I'm certainly not an expert on any language other than English, and even there I'm not the best lol
I do think that the argument he's making is weak even if we understand this as law though, since the law of value in capitalism is not enforced by the state. Reading in the state here is very odd
It's fair enough. I think you are capturing the core elements of it. But one thing I also like to emphasize, and which you see in Zoe Baker's book, is incorporating the historical elements of it too. The first chapter of means and ends has a good discussion.
It was meant to be about anarchism, but yeah Engels knows so little about it he fails to engage it meaningfully. Engels was complaining about the Anarchists they just kicked out of the First International though.
judgesabo.substack.com/p/the-flaws-...
Definitely is misused. Can't see what you were originally replying to because of the block, but I commonly see people read On Authority to claim the word "authoritarian" is meaningless and just wanted to throw in this point
Engels endorses the use of the word authoritarian in On Authority. There is a misuse of the term certainly, but also valid uses.
judgesabo.substack.com/p/read-on-au...
In her letter to lawmakers, Thompson asked for help to close the facility and transfer its ownership from the federal government to the village for redevelopment as a museum. The βBroadview Justice Corridor,β as she called the project, would turn the ICE facility into a βnational center dedicated to immigration history, civil rights education, civic leadership, and cultural tourism. βThis transformation would convert a site associated with fear, protest, and division into one that promotes education, reconciliation, and national dialogue,β Thompson wrote in the letter, estimating the proposal would draw up to 250,000 visitors annually and generate up to $31 million in economic activity.
This is a legitimately great idea. Turn every ICE concentration camp into a museum of their crimes and the people who fought against them.
Have spent this month mostly reading about intimate partner violence and sexual violence statistics. So far this paper depressed me the most. It found that in 2023 an estimated 18.9% of females and 14.8% of males aged 20+ are survivors of child sex abuse.
www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
Shut the fuck up
Yes it's shocking to have a shared reality with people on the right after a decade of madness. But you do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to Hitler
There is understandable. Joy MAGA is fracturing, but also a disturbing trend where people like Tucker or Fuentes are being shared uncritically as the "reasonable" voices on the right.
One of the weird but consistent throughlines in the Trump era has been more intellectual conservative types *themselves* making comparisons to the civil war *to leftists*, ostensibly under the assumption that surely everyone agrees it was insane and wrong to take up arms to abolish slavery.
