Democrats have been there out spouting the truth of the situation, but that's not enough.
What truth? Anti-oligarchy rhetoric in the Democratic party outside the narrow progressive bloc is basically a rounding error, and "everything is fiiiine" is definitely not the truth. Republicans are lying pieces of shit, sure, but the DNC habitually lies too and their lies fucking suck to boot.
The set of countries that would enforce an ICC warrant against Trump is a subset of the set of those that would enforce one against Netanyahu. None of the countries the POTUS would actually go to belong to the latter.
I mean yes, and that's what I'm calling a failure on the part of the American people.
The fact that it still has to be Bernie doing this is nothing short of a failure on the part of the American people.
But anyway, why are you so against even trying?
Oh no don't get me wrong I'm very much for education. I just convinced the results won't be anything spectacular. I don't see a future where the average neurotypical person will be able to communicate with neurodivergent people with no friction, but there's absolutely a lot to be gained from trying to achieve such a future anyway.
Now if you're wondering why, then, I'm saying all of this, remember the very start of this conversation. I was trying to argue that there are real negative aspects to autism and that it's not all "fake problems", and then tried to argue that even the "fake problems" are very much real due to the nature of humans as social animals, and that no matter how you improve society those problems won't go away 100%. Ergo, they count as negative aspects in this discussion, was what I was trying to say. I was not trying to argue that because those problems can't be completely eliminated we shouldn't try; that'd be pretty fallacious logic.
It’s such a lame stance to take that we should just throw our hope in the trash because it might be difficult to bring positive change.
I don't think I ever said said anything like that throughout this whole conversation. Are you sure that was me?
I think you misunderstood me there. Autism isn't a problem*; people with autism not being able to effectively communicate with neurotypical people (and vice versa of course) is.
*some exceptions apply.
That the greatest period of starvation in Ireland's modern history, during a period of continent-wide unrest had one rebellion with two deaths might suggest that starvation is not the revolutionary impetus you think it is.
That's fair. In that case allow me to weaken/correct my position: While starvation isn't the revolutionary impetus, it's not nothing and does contribute to revolutions.
The food wasn't there, because some ~90% of the conscripts sent off to WW1 were peasants, in a system that was already in a very precarious position regarding labor and backwards technology being unable to compensate for shortages of labor. Not only that, but WW1 resulted also in the massive buy-up of horses, also key to peasant life and agricultural production. Even in peacetime it was noted that rural peasantry were malnourished, even by the low standards of the Russian working class, and the situation did not improve during the wartime years.
According to historians, the median level of peasant nutrition appears to have stayed normal.
Source. They still weren't "having the time of their lives," to correct my previous assertion, but they weren't going hungry either.
... land-reformers who split with another, more radical socialist party, and who had only marginal support from the peasantry after 1907? How... revolutionary?
Conservative counterrevolutionaries don't vote for socialist revolutionary parties, which the Trudoviks were. They split with the SRs over the question of whether they should participate in the Duma so they definitely weren't merely land-reformers. Also where did you get that they had only marginal support from the peasantry after 1907?
Oh great, increased car payments are just an expression of the human desire not to starve too.
I mean yeah why not? If we assume there's a person X who's financially in a bad spot, then the reason person X would have issue with the idea of increased car payments is that the money for the car would have to come from somewhere else. Fundamentally there's not much difference between a working person getting a pay cut (or facing rising food prices) and a farmer having a bad harvest.
Yes, but if the peasantry, who are objectively in a worse food situation than the urban proletariat, are starving, according to your hunger-based analysis of revolutionary impetus, they should be immensely revolutionary.
Were the peasantry in an objectively worse food situation than the urban proletariat? If you have a something supporting that claim please link it.
Yet history shows, time and time again, that this is not the case - and Marx, living during the Revolutions of '48 you claim were driven by hunger, himself noted the lack of revolutionary sentiment in the peasantry.
Peasants didn't really revolt in the same way urban workers did, and urban workers were absolutely more revolutionary (though in some places the gap shrank with time), but peasant uprisings did happen during in 1848-1849.
Peasant revolts in 1848–1849 involved more participants than the national revolutions of the period. Most importantly, they were successful in bringing the final abolition of serfdom or its remnants across the German Confederation, the Austrian Empire and Prussia.
Also on the 1848 revolutions as a whole,
Some historians emphasise the serious crop failures, particularly those of 1846, that produced hardship among peasants and the working urban poor.
There's a reason I said "in part". I know that the hungry forties were only one contributing cause of the revolutions of 1848, and I don't think you'll find a reputable historian that considers them irrelevant.
TL;DR: You’re kinda proving my point by saying that there’s really only one valid way to communicate and softly fighting the notion that things can get better. Also yes agree that there are the low functioning cases but the bar for “low functioning” is way higher than it needs to be. I’m
I think you got me wrong there. I'm not saying there's only one valid way to communicate. However, neurotypical people will always use the bullshit script when talking to each other and will try to apply it when communicating with neurodivergent people. You can educate them to be more accommodating, but it'll always be like one person speaking English and the other Chinese; no matter how much you teach them most people will only vaguely understand what's going on, and when you add all the bullshit that comes with large organizations there's a fundamental limit on how much things can get better.
It's a little bit of columb A, a little bit of column B. Nothing about having to stim or occasionally going nonverbalhas anything to do with the bullshit script. And, while I also hate the bullshit script, it's unfortunately here to stay. Humans are social animals, so being less able to interact with society at large isn't a fake problem. If anything it's not unlike being unable to fluently speak your native language, which is quite obviously a problem. Of course society as a whole should accommodate people with autism, but that's a solution to a problem that very much exists.
Nobody is silent about this what the fuck are you even talking about?
Look up his anti-oligarchy tour. It's a thing. That said, this doesn't really qualify as good news, because MAGA people liking progressive policy and the Bernie-Trump pipeline aren't news in any sense of the word.