This is still the dark ages of software development. I don't mean that in the common nonsense sense of "methods," but of perception and of goals.
As a whole, this behaves exactly like a primitive age does: all effort spent solving the same problems over and over again.
More from Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹
But you see you don't actually understand how lawmaking works there's this set of procedures and dates that BLEAAAARGHHHHHvomitvomit
Neoliberalism is an economic genocidal ideology predicated on maintaining capitalism, and capitalism is the impoverishment, oppression and death of poor people because that's the OBJECTIVE of capitalist ideology. It's a malthusian ideology.
Neoliberals are the original Alt-Right
Capitalism has ZERO todo with "markets vs. no markets," or "central planning vs. decentralization." That's *propaganda*. That's a diversion.
Capitalism is the NAME OF THE ABSENCE of any support for poor people. In capitalism, giving ANY power to poor people is a CRIME.
Capitalism has an *exception* to the strict forbiddance of giving any economic power to the 99%, and that is the concept of "Merit."
If you act as a SLAVE (wage slave), then you can get some crumbs to *temporarily* avoid your death. While you are mechanically useful.
These fucking Neoliberals which are 99% of the Democratic Party in the US are all POSING as nice people. They are not. They are all sociopaths.
This economic fascism is so thoroughly normalized in the US that nobody has a concept of what capitalism is.
The next day, she voted to move the bill without the 2k. Such a fucking phoney. https://t.co/3aiwDROypo
— ProgressiveSoapbox (@theProgSoapbox) December 31, 2020
Neoliberalism is an economic genocidal ideology predicated on maintaining capitalism, and capitalism is the impoverishment, oppression and death of poor people because that's the OBJECTIVE of capitalist ideology. It's a malthusian ideology.
Neoliberals are the original Alt-Right
Capitalism has ZERO todo with "markets vs. no markets," or "central planning vs. decentralization." That's *propaganda*. That's a diversion.
Capitalism is the NAME OF THE ABSENCE of any support for poor people. In capitalism, giving ANY power to poor people is a CRIME.
Capitalism has an *exception* to the strict forbiddance of giving any economic power to the 99%, and that is the concept of "Merit."
If you act as a SLAVE (wage slave), then you can get some crumbs to *temporarily* avoid your death. While you are mechanically useful.
These fucking Neoliberals which are 99% of the Democratic Party in the US are all POSING as nice people. They are not. They are all sociopaths.
This economic fascism is so thoroughly normalized in the US that nobody has a concept of what capitalism is.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x