crossposted from https://lemmy.world/post/18897666
Not sure about when it was recognized that the Peninsula was a boot, but it was drawn as such in maps derived from 2nd century AD originals, and high heels became popular in the 17th century AD amongst male nobility who wanted to emphasize their height, status, and the resulting fact that they needed to do nothing requiring practical movement.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18210672
It's most likely from 1984 because it's an episode mostly about the Olympics. Donkey Kong debuted in 1982 and that would probably have been too early to feature it on the show in time and 1986 would have been a little late for Donkey Kong.
That said, 1982 is definitely a possibility. Or even a different year if they decided to do an Olympics episode in an off-year. Unfortunately, the website regarding the episode doesn't say.
https://misterrogers.org/episodes/getting-ready-for-the-olympic-games/
Edit: Thanks to rrconkle@lemmy.zip for getting the year right!
By "no matter what their own voter base actually wants", you mean "some bizarre envisioning of the Dem voter base as far-left"
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-want-party-move-right-poll-2030713
The poll of 1,001 adults nationwide, conducted January 21 to January 27—just days after Trump returned to office—found that more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want the party to move toward moderation rather than becoming more liberal or staying the same.
It found that 45 percent of Democratic respondents wanted the party to become "more moderate," compared to 34 percent in 2021. The poll also found that Democrats are less satisfied with the state of party politics, with 22 percent wanting the party to stay the same, down from 31 percent in 2021.
Meanwhile, 29 percent of participants want the party to become more liberal, compared to 34 percent in 2021.
The breakdown of the vote percentage shows that 50 percent of nonwhite participants support the party becoming more moderate, compared to 42 percent of white participants. The shift also trends higher among higher-income earners.
I have an overwhelmingly negative view of Newsom, and let me tell you: most of the people shitting themselves in fury over Newsom on here are the kind of people who celebrate their 'principled' advocacy of nonvoting in order to allow literal fascists to murder American minorities. They do not want to express approval of any good policy from 'the Dems', because that would weaken their argument that no one in the current system is capable of doing anything to improve anyone's life, which justifies their total abstention and visceral hatred for participation in 'electoral' politics.
And on the side of the spectrum I’m calling left to left-centre, we seem to let the fewer things we disagree with get in the way of the many more things we would agree with each other.
The problem is the same issue that leads to right-unity, but in reverse.
Most people do not make political allegiances based on policy opinions.
The right doesn't agree on anything, despite how it appears to many who are unfamiliar with right-wing discourse. But they define themselves as a community, largely defined in objection to modernity.
The left defines itself as many communities, and what ends up being important is not policy, but in-groups and out-groups. It doesn't matter what policy would help the working class, or minorities, or establish a more just or even more left-friendly situation going forward. What matters is the in-group being opposed to the out-group.
There are people on here who literally and openly decry 'turbolibs' as worse than literal Nazis. There are many who equate liberals with literal fascists (and they would spare not an instant reminding you that Bernie Sanders is a liberal).
They don't care about the people they claim to champion. They don't have actual policy concerns, though they might express opinions on policy in the abstract. All they care about is in-group and out-group.
Are you really living in a democracy when only one of two parties can ever win, and both are 100% commited to neoliberal economics? Nothing is gonna get better in the long run under a system that is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. No war but class war.
I'm so glad nothing has improved since 1789 in your eyes. As we all know, minorities and the actual working class, as people don't actually matter; only being able to beat your chest about how 'pure' you are over championing the abstract demographic at the expense of the actual living human beings who make up these classes matters.
I'm so fucking tuned out to how I used to be just one short year ago. I know it's just a nonstop avalanche of fascism that I, as an individual, will not be better equipped to combat by following closer. I used to follow Congressional bills, debates, presidential speeches, etc.
Now my attention to national politics is utterly minimal and restricted to informing myself of only what I need to for the sake of local activism and keeping up with international politics (which I still follow fairly closely).
I'm still probably more tuned-in than most of the American electorate. But fuck, I can't just watch every individual step of fascism going forward here on out. I'm close enough to blowing my brains out without that additional inducement.
Oh, thank goodness! I always wondered what happened. I wish him the best!
I’m betting we’re about to see the Venezuelan political pendulum swing with the impertus of a howitzer shell towards fascism.
Implying it's not already fascist?
I've seen you around and have a vaguely positive association with your username, take that as you will
Unexpected!
Text:
It’s generally the lack of parallel institutions run by workers which sabotage such attempts. Revolutions are generally not powerful enough to do anything but take out the current power; this pretty invariably means the second-most powerful group takes over the role of the overthrown power, or the near-seconds squabble amongst themselves over it. Since dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes tend to systemically crush every alternate power base they can get away with crushing, that generally leaves only those they cannot crush - most often religion in societies which have not experienced a deep secularization, the military, and economic powers in just about every society (in the SovUnion at the end of its life, for example, this was the bureaucracy; whereas we are more familiar with it being capitalists and other private economic actors). So ‘theocracy’, ‘junta’, or ‘something amenable to the economic elite’ are most often the results.
A libertarian socialist society will emerge when low-hierarchy institutions have considerable support and deeply established roots during a time of upheaval - such as Rojava taking advantage of pre-existing Kurdish revolutionary institutions which were largely socialist or socialist-sympathetic to lay the foundation of the autonomous administration, once both the Syrian government and Islamist forces had exhausted themselves in the area.
Building parallel institutions now sets up the stage for tomorrow's victories.
Speaking of fallible, I've certainly taken my fair share of well-deserved lumps from moderation, lmao
Moderator action establishes a baseline for conduct in the community. Sometimes, even regular contributors need a whack on the nose with a newspaper - otherwise it ends up a tightly-knit clique with "rules for thee but not for me".