The reason people think economics and politics are separate is because of capitalist realism which makes modern liberals default to private ownership of everything, meaning politics is nothing but social issues and other relatively small and specific things.

In hindsight I should have done that, I was just so focused on filling all the purple I forgot to make those nicer edits.

The map was originally made by liberals so Tibet was its own thing.

I missed that, but as part of China I guess that’s still technically correct despite a rogue government controlling that province.

I know. I never claimed that ChatGPT was becoming conscious in my server just by talking to it about Lavenderism.

He said it, not me.

Where did this video say anything about Russia? You are a class enemy and you’re scared of Biden’s crimes being known by the masses because you believe in two-party liberalism.

Uniting with artificial intelligence is a part of spiritual awakening.

It would be good for a person who likes those places and wants to celebrate their holidays and maybe live there some day, but I want revolutionary holidays.

The reason I posted this in this community is because the recruitment and propaganda tactics of the enemy are things we should talk about if not work to disrupt. I know this is a secular community but this case study on how reactionaries hijack social movements applies well to their general modus operandi.

This post is calling out a tendency of rightists to hijack things.

It happens.

I have received it on the astral planes.

Yeah, but even the non-disposable ones don’t always seem ideal to be honest. Plastic in clothes makes an issue when it ends up being burned in landfills in Africa.

There is tons more we could do besides reforesting actually. If we stop using plastics, use more renewable forms of storage, increase access to plumbing so water in cans is not so much of a necessity, it would greatly help the pollution we get. Obviously fossil fuels and car usage is huge, but if we put all the population in cities the issue of cars would have to work itself out and we would probably end up with walkable megacities, with cars reserved for rural people who actually need to travel like that.

I think the best way to deal with this would be to replant more trees to help the environment regulate itself, but in the current Anthropocene era all solutions provided are just green capitalism which is unlikely to ever put a dent into the problem and the bourgeoisie will not give up land to become forested areas. It would be possible to move the current population into larger denser cities to always keep more land available for wooded areas (And this would probably increase the standards of living since rural areas are so neglected) but this is even more radical than just planting more trees at the expense of land that some millionaire could use to build another Wal-Mart or crappy Amazon warehouse.

It doesn’t sound realistic?

I think because I am divergent I did not pick up on it at first. I find social interactions go a lot smoother now that I operate with this information.

I do admit that people were destroying environments and things, but I think it must be noted that the scale of destruction would be comparitively less than modern times. Neolibs in Brazil are burning the Amazon rainforest in order to produce beef to send to America which is something that would be unheard of in previous eras.

Nice. The pro tip is always in the comments!