jeffreon.bsky.social
Just a lefty trying to figure out what's going on. Likes trees and green things. It's my first time on Earth, and probably yours too!
Abolish borders. Queer liberation. Eat the rich. ACAB. ✨
I'm 🥔 on ttv. He/him. 🌿💚🏳️🌈
1,232 posts
198 followers
61 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
And I think that's messed up as a basic concept, particularly when almost all people are literally never going to make big money. Capitalism doesn't allow for it.
Yes, some jobs are more difficult or nasty. But pay doesn't reflect that, or toilet cleaners would be paid millions.
comment in response to
post
Ideally they should be paid the same.
As a culture we're so used to the idea that different work should get different compensation, but money is the tool we use to actualise our lives. When we say some people deserve more pay, we're saying they deserve a better chance to lead a more full life.
comment in response to
post
The US and Israeli run GHF 'food sites', which are the only ones allowed to operate despite UN condemnation, are just a publicity tool to give the illusion that Israel isn't blockading Gaza.
They distribute fuck all aid and are used to draw out Palestinians so they can be gunned down by the IDF.
comment in response to
post
Big questions that sound hyperbolic, I know, but I firmly believe we need to be asking them even if we're prevented from acting upon the answers.
The morally correct thing to do here is to take ownership away from investors without compensation, and if we're afraid to do so, that's a problem.
comment in response to
post
You're probably right, but that throws a stark light on our society.
I would argue that private monopoly over water is theft. Every £ that goes to investors is taken under duress to enrich capital.
Also, how democratic is our society if capital can force govt to act against the public good?
comment in response to
post
There should be no bonuses or dividends.
Renationalise at zero cost and leave the parasites with nothing.
comment in response to
post
No bail out - just appropriate the entire thing. The investor parasites have been screwing everyone over for too long already.
comment in response to
post
'Peacekeepers' in 'bright vests'? With guns?
Who the hell were they? Police in disguise, some private militia?
Why does the article not seem to care who shot these people?
Not even starting on the absurdity of the idea of a 'peacekeeper' with a fucking GUN.
comment in response to
post
One man's quest to become the Most Contemptible Twat.
Austerity is socialised murder, and Starmer is turbo charging it.
comment in response to
post
Nope! We're not doing this. Go and spout your hateful bilge at someone else 🚷
comment in response to
post
As long as centrists (eg
Dems) are impotent and do nothing, the fash get bolder and more extreme. I don't think Trump could have happened at all if the last 2 decades of Dems had enacted decent policy. The short term harm reduction actually makes things worse in the long run, from what I've seen.
comment in response to
post
I'm not from the US, but from what I've seen it looks completely fucked. I'm sorry you're having to deal with it.
The situation in my country is similar (though not so bad). And I think that's what made me settle on the opposite conclusion to you.
comment in response to
post
I do get the harm reduction argument. But it will always amount to things getting worse - just more gradually.
To make things actually get better our threat of withdrawing support needs to be real, sustained, and clear. And if they still don't listen, then they were never on our side to begin with.
comment in response to
post
Thing is, if they know you'll vote for them no matter what, it doesn't matter what you say or do in the interim. They will never move left until the threat of never being in power again is leveraged against them.
And even then they'll probably just flip parties. And that's fine; just replace them!
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I don't understand either. I assume it's about appealing to a broad crowd, but that feels like an even worse betrayal of principles.
comment in response to
post
"Is this rainbow glitter in my petrol?"
"Why yes it is. I assume that will not be a problem? 🔪"
comment in response to
post
Have you reconsidered your transphobic opinions about the Supreme Court ruling yet, or are you still parroting Starmer about how much 'clarity' it brings?
Because I don't find that very 'inspirational'.
comment in response to
post
You don't do politics with integrity. You're willing to scapegoat minorities in order to secure support from the Right.
comment in response to
post
The deployment of the US surveillance state to monitor the entire imperial hegemony is really disturbing.
Did the US just have records on this guy due to his journalism, or do we all have a little file filled with alleged treasons against the US Empire?
comment in response to
post
I've always believed that the solution is to improve standards of living and community spaces everywhere.
If everywhere is nice, fewer people will end up flooding to the Only Nice Places.
It sounds naive, I know, but I really think it matters.
comment in response to
post
"Very important that former presidents be respected"
No, they should be just as accountable as everyone else. He disrespected the people by abusing his position of power. It's absurd that he be respected in turn.
comment in response to
post
I can accept people advising visitors on customs that might endanger them if they don't conform. But as someone who is already seen as vulgar in some of those places by virtue of being queer, I hope you can understand that I don't feel particularly inclined to comply with conservative moral codes.
comment in response to
post
Back home I see local people walking around like that on hot days, and it's fine? I don't see how it's disrespectful. It doesn't harm anyone.
I do agree though that it's a problem when hundreds of hire cars descend on rural locations. That's damaging and inconsiderate.
comment in response to
post
I don't even think it's about the money. It's about terrorising the proles to keep us desperate enough to do horrible jobs for zero pay.
That way, rich fucks like Mone always have an ample supply of exploitable workers who will accept the worst possible conditions. Blood for the money machines.
comment in response to
post
I care more about the predictions of a blancmange than Reform dickheads. Why are you platforming these troglodytes?
comment in response to
post
Tax the rich. It's literally that simple.
comment in response to
post
There's literally no value in using a tool that makes shit up and also needs mega data centres that accelerate climate change.
Why does the govt think we need this rubbish?
comment in response to
post
lol, they're supposed to be helping with congestion but also demand a woman in a bikini and a shirtless man cover up more? Bizarre.
comment in response to
post
It's partly because our education system is broken.
If we let students learn about things they actually care about (rather than areas with 'good jobs'), and we don't apply so much pressure to succeed at all costs, then students can learn at their own pace in their own way. No need to cheat.
comment in response to
post
I'm so thankful that monstrous criminals like this evil, evil girl are being held to account.
Unrelatedly, how are Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak doing after they murdered all those people via COVID? Oh, there was no accountability? Interesting.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
"The shootings took place at a time when political violence has become more commonplace in the US"
I hope the Guardian is not trying to compare a political assassination to a city of people resisting racist abductions perpetrated by a fascist regime?
Because, fucking hell.
comment in response to
post
Sorry Starmer, but the boys in Reform Club aren't gonna invite you over to play Xbox no matter how racist you are on MSN.
comment in response to
post
I'm not?
Not sure where you're getting that from, chum.
comment in response to
post
I agree! Very important.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, they do it all the time. No point in chatting with them, really. I'm just trying to figure out what the game is, because it's vaguely fascinating.
comment in response to
post
We don't have to choose between an outdated Equality Act and one minced up by a load of JK Rowling's transphobic friends. We can (and should!) improve things for everyone! And that doesn't just mean for trans people, obviously. Your paternity leave example is good one.
comment in response to
post
Oh god, can we please not do the two-parallel-threads thing, it does my head in.
If there are inconsistencies in the Equality Act then they should be rectified, right? Equality law is an evolving field! There are people campaigning for better paternity rights at this very moment, as I recall.
comment in response to
post
It's like I said yesterday, I'm really not sure what your game is. You seem committed to the transphobia bit, but you don't really seem to have a solid grounding in the basic concepts. But you're also too dedicated to copying and pasting obscure sources for a troll.
It's all pretty fascinating!
comment in response to
post
Why would I want that?
No one needs to lose any rights anywhere! That's what we've been talking about since day one, right?
And just FYI, I suspect trans men would prefer 'paternity' rather than 'maternity', though you might want to check that with an actual trans person to be sure.
comment in response to
post
I'm not sure who you're referring to or what point you're making there bud.
comment in response to
post
You really need to peek back at what I've been writing, chum!
Provision exists to deny trans people access to spaces of ANY gender if someone complains.
Trans women can be barred from 'male facilities'.
Also you might wanna check the demographics for the trans population. Bit more than 10!
comment in response to
post
Oh, and did you have a gander at that vid I shared with you a few days ago too? Falkner even said that trans people shouldn't be allowed to use some gender neutral facilities if people complained. It's all very messed up. Bullshit, as you say.
comment in response to
post
It's the same as the whole toilets thing I'm afraid. Trans people can be denied access to the single sex spaces that don't match their gender as well as the correct one, if someone doesn't like it.
comment in response to
post
Have a quick gander back at my post there chum. You might have missed the part where trans people can be denied access to wards on the whim of pretty much anyone.
comment in response to
post
They won't be able to go to any wards. The ruling and guidance makes it possible for them to be refused access to any ward if there's a 'legitimate interest'. Someone just needs to go, 'ew a trans person'.
If the law makes it possible for hospitals to refuse to treat trans people, where do they go?
comment in response to
post
I suspect you are as aware as I am that the new rulings and guidance make it possible for trans people to be denied access to wards for people of any gender, depending on the whims of those supervising!
So where should they go?