Nobody Cares: PRS

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

I mean the stereotype is old as dirt but ok.

 

[Sid]

Must be local thing then (American, English speaking part of the world?)
When we talk about bankers here in the NL, we mean bankers as in owner, CEO or other top function at a bank.
When we say Jews, we mean Jews.
I honestly did not think about Jews when I read Cristalles post. I was totally surprised about the reactions it got.

 

[Spirits Rising]

Must be local thing then (American, English speaking part of the world?)
When we talk about bankers here in the NL, we mean bankers as in owner, CEO or other top function at a bank.
When we say Jews, we mean Jews.
I honestly did not think about Jews when I read Cristalles post. I was totally surprised about the reactions it got.

It's not that, honestly.

I'm well aware of the historical, negative/Anti-Semetic meaning and simply did not connect such to her post. Tone and word choices have meaning.

 

[Cristalle]

I mean the stereotype is old as dirt but ok.

I personally think it would be anti-Semitic to make that stereotype. I may have inadvertently engaged in one trope but everyone yelling at me engaged in two.

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

Holy fuck, is it really this hard to not be defencive and just move the fuck on or is this a hill to die on.

"whoops, my bad", is all it needed, it's not like you have some history of anti-semetic jabbering.

OH AND REMEBR, WHEN YOU POINT AT PEOPLE YOU HAVE THREE FINGERS POINTING BACK AT YOU SO PFFT!

 

[Clara D.]

I can sympathize because terms have been weaponized exactly so we are unable to communicate. Globalists simply mean the jews, and not the multinational corprate interests that are sucking wealth out of the US and elsewhere? When the fuck did that happen?

But ok, it did happen -and now if it comes up on a forum I can't simply say "the globalists", I have to spell it out or I have to accept charges of anti-semitism.

Dafuq, that's news to me. Even the "bankers" one I didn't immediately associate with Jews, I immediately think of the asshats that got bailed out during the "too big to fail" debacle.

Safest seems to be "1%." Just like MC "clubs," it's 1% that are the problem

 

[Anya Ristow]

I can sympathize because terms have been weaponized exactly so we are unable to communicate. Globalists simply mean the jews, and not the multinational corprate interests that are sucking wealth out of the US and elsewhere? When the fuck did that happen?

But ok, it did happen -and now if it comes up on a forum I can't simply say "the globalists", I have to spell it out or I have to accept charges of anti-semitism.

Dafuq, that's news to me. Even the "bankers" one I didn't immediately associate with Jews, I immediately think of the asshats that got bailed out during the "too big to fail" debacle.

Safest seems to be "1%." Just like MC "clubs," it's 1% that are the problem

I think it was "bankers" combined with "run the world" that did it, but I don't really know. I didn't know I was supposed to be outraged until I was told.

Next time, can we start with, "there's a connotation there I don't think you intend?"

But you can count on the 1% term being turned against us, too. As HH said, these aren't things we're allowed to discuss. We're supposed to stick to left vs right, the fight that has been neatly prepared for us.

 

[Anya Ristow]

Must be local thing then (American, English speaking part of the world?)
When we talk about bankers here in the NL, we mean bankers as in owner, CEO or other top function at a bank.
When we say Jews, we mean Jews.
I honestly did not think about Jews when I read Cristalles post. I was totally surprised about the reactions it got.

I'm an American and I didn't make the connection until I was told to make the connection. I see where they are coming from, in retrospect, but I think the reaction was over the top.

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

I miss the days of when it was weird guys in a supr sekrt room with robes and satanic whatever who ran the world.

Surely though it can't be a handfull of people with way too much money with self interests who pay other people to push their shit who have a self interest to get paid by said people.

NWO something lizard people something.

 

[Clara D.]

I think it was "bankers" combined with "run the world" that did it, but I don't really know. I didn't know I was supposed to be outraged until I was told.

Next time, can we start with, "there's a connotation there I don't think you intend?"

But you can count on the 1% term being turned against us, too. As HH said, these aren't things we're allowed to discuss. We're supposed to stick to left vs right, the fight that has been neatly prepared for us.

On the topic of banks ruling the world, they're only part of the "Mega-Corp" problem, at least in the US. Although many of the companies are global.

The 20 Mega Corporations Who Are Controlling And Shaping You

While we are all born with minds of mush... a blank slate... over our lifetimes we are controlled and shaped by many things. These 20 mega corporations

modernsurvivalblog.com

 

[Veritable Quandry]

It’s lizard people, people.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Globalists simply mean the jews, and not the multinational corprate interests that are sucking wealth out of the US and elsewhere? When the fuck did that happen?

Not that this answers your question but:

Thanks Ann.

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

It’s lizard people, people.

Well he would know, see as he showed me that everything I knew was wrong.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm not accusing anyone here of being antisemitic.

Rather, I object to the trope because it's based on a misunderstanding of the nature of capitalism that is shared by many on both the political left and the political right.

That is, it assumes that the current economic system is a neutral tool and that any injustices and unfairnesses associated with it are the fault of bad actors of one sort of another -- banks, benefits scroungers and welfare queens, irresponsible trades unions, and so forth -- which can be remedied if only the bad actors can be controlled and restrained.

My problem with this analysis (if that's not too polite a term for it) is that it ignores the way in which economic relationships determine our social reality -- it doesn't ultimately matter how altruistic and unselfish the owner of a business is, since if he's going to stay in business then he has to do it by appropriating the surplus value of his employees' labour.

Similarly, the directors of banks, wealth management and pensions funds and so forth, are no more free to set the goals for their efforts than are their more junior staff -- they have to act according to the dictates of capitalism to increase the wealth of their companies and investors.

That's not saying that they can't, or shouldn't, have any criteria in mind other than the pursuit of profit but if they don't match up to the sort of return on investment their competitors are offering, then before too long either their customers will desert them for less socially-minded institutions or they'll find their investors and shareholders replace them with people whose agenda and goals are more in line with those of theirs.

That, incidentally, is the big argument in favour of government regulation of things like environmental issues, employee protection, anti-slavery laws and the like -- not because businesses are necessarily blind to these issues but because, without mandatory minimum standards, whole sectors are at risk of a race to the bottom, led by the least scrupulous.

So blaming the people in charge of the supposedly neutral system, and suggesting that, if only the right people were in charge -- including the state -- then things would be a lot better is a mistake, at least to my mind, since it ignores the fact that no one is, or can be, in charge -- the world economic system isn't directed by anyone, any more than is the weather.

It's all just people acting and reacting, in ways that seem good to them at the time, in response to what other people are doing.

So when left-wing governments try to remedy the unfairness and injustices of capitalism by trying to change the people managing the system, or by taking whole industries into public ownership to be managed on behalf of the people and it doesn't work, then before very long they start blaming the bankers and currency dealers for sabotaging things, while the bankers are simply doing their job of responding to what the markets and other banks are doing.

And when people start blaming international financiers and bankers, or "neo-liberals" or whatever for being citizens of nowhere, blind to any national interest and visiting suffering and inequality on the innocent workers by sabotaging government plans for their own selfish ends, then, at least historically, pretty quickly they start blaming the Jews.

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

Not that this answers your question but:

Thanks Ann.

Hey, did yah know that Bill Mauher totally slapped hams with her?

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

It's the Mice.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Thread.

 

[Han Held]

It's the Mice.

Tasty, tasty mice....

 

[Rose Karuna]

I was just going to like your post but then I thought that a like could be misinterpreted to think I liked the results of Reaganomics.

I like that you're tracking! One of the worst things to ever happen to this country were "Reaganomics". When I hear people lament about a great leader and economic thinker he was, I want to vomit.

Next worse thing - "Trumpfuckery" of Foreign Affairs and Trade. When we come out of this (if we do) we'll be lucky to have even a shell of a country left and a modicum of respect.