Wouldn’t be very “universal” if it was only for low income people, and that’s the point. UBI means everyone gets the same basic income, regardless of their job earnings.
No, Mandela wasn’t.
The extreme radical feminist notions of “all penetrative sex is rape” and “women don’t enjoy intercourse, they’ve just been brainwashed by the patriarchy to think they do”. Although I don’t know how much of that is actually “loony left” vs. simply “Andrea Dworkin had major sexual hangups and managed to get published”
To be fair, Dworkin’s experiences in her twenties as a victim of marital rape and other forms of domestic violence, including harassment and beatings from her ex-husband after she left him and resorting to prostitution and drug smuggling to support herself while she tried to hide from him, were enough to leave anybody with major sexual hangups. But yeah, I don’t think feminists in general should adopt her perspective as their blueprint for gender relations.
It’s similar to referring to enslaved persons instead of referring to them as slaves. It’s supposed to humanize them I think. While I think it’s just another example of the eumphemism treadmill, language changes and sometimes you just gotta roll with that. At work I no longer refer to our employees as employees, instead of refer to them as employed persons.
The idea that all landords are thieves. It’s certainly a topic of frequent discussion at r/Antiwork.
I saw this story from 2020 a few days ago. Yeah, there are reasons why it didn’t get much publicity.
Nevermind.
No, not necessarily, but some people think so.
Well, we can agree on one thing: only the Daily Mail would publish a story like this.
One doesn’t get jailed for their political positions unless one is an extremist. He’s certainly not an extremist by the standards of the average person in a western country in 2022. But to a racist white South African of 1964 to 1982, he was likely considered extreme. Why else would they have kept him in prison for so long?
Which was my point. Extremism of that sort, in the service of virtue, is not necessarily a bad thing, so I was disagreeing with the statement that all extremism is always bad. Sometimes extremism is a good thing, especially when random smashing and looting aren’t involved.
Do you know that this is a loony left position?
Or so I’ve been told.
I don’t think he was taking issue with the ‘extremist’ part.
The concept of “open borders” is so loony even Bernie Sanders isn’t for it! (Of course, not just some radical leftists believe it, some radical libertarians also do.)
Although in principle it might not be a bad thing to strive towards (like in a “Star Trek”-type utopia), currently the idea is clearly terrible, just ask the people of Ukraine (and maybe Taiwan, among others) what they think about it. This is of course a separate argument on how many people a country can and should admit as immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers (which is often too low when it comes to rich industrial countries like the US, IMO).
ISTR that at least at one point, Nelson Mandela was on Amnesty International’s list of justified political prisoners.
As loony as “open borders” might be, the concept does not in anyway encompass “refuse to repel a military invasion.”
I don’t see what’s insane or “loony” about open borders. What’s insane is forcing people to remain in Afghanistan under the Taliban just because they happened to be born there (whether or not the Taliban happened to be in charge at the time of said birth). There is a tradeoff between freedom of movement (which is perhaps a better way of describing my desired end-point: recognizing freedom of movement about the Earth as a human right) and self-determination, sure, but that doesn’t require anything like the international order we presently have.
Sure. But I wasn’t thinking about the viewpoint of Amnesty International. I was thinking about the viewpoint of the people of apartheid era South Africa. From that viewpoint he was an extremist.
AI doesn’t have a list of justified political prisoners.
Their original focus was on “prisoners of conscience”, the term they used for people who were imprisoned solely for their politiical views, without any record of violence.
Mandela originally qualified as a prisoner of conscience, because he was jailed for union activities and travelling without his race-based travel document. He was trying to change the political system, but through non-violence, so he met AI’s definition. They lobbied for his immediate release.
Then he was convicted of crimes of violence (sabotage and armed struggle), also politically motivated. After a great deal of internal debate, AI took him off the list of prisoners of conscience, which meant that AI did not lobby for his immediate release. They did argue for humane prison conditions, access to counsel, and so on.
Today, 60 years later, AI’s policies are more nuanced. In similar circumstances, they would likely treat the second set of convictions differently, and argue that in the context of apartheid South Africa, the conviction in the second trial was not fair and therefore Mandela should be released or be given a fair trial.
See here for more details:
In reply to Mijin’s British commentator more than to chappachula (who may have only been citing an example, not indicating support for a stipulated position) –
This is not a belief on the part of Facebook that there “are” 55 (or more) genders. Not in the same sense that are are 118 elements and we know what they are and what their chemical properties are and have given them names and locations on the periodic chart of the elements.
It’s a recognition that there are 55 (or more) gender identities that various people have claimed as their own, in their attempt to distinguish who we actually are from the identity that is assumed and projected onto us on the basis of our body parts.
If anyone is unclear about the distinction, say so, and I’ll elaborate. (I know Mijin’s dismissive British commentator isn’t likely to be reading this at home tonight; let’s just pretend that I can respond to him nevertheless)