meowmeowbeanz @ meowmeowbeanz @sh.itjust.works

fite me! (in open discourse)

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

364

Joined

2 yr. ago

So the richest tax-dodging edgelord on the planet now gets to rummage through your W-2s like a raccoon in a dumpster. The ultimate expression of "small government" is letting a meme-stock billionaire play 1984 with the IRS database.

Remember when we thought tax returns were private? Turns out they’re just another data lake for Silicon Valley’s most unhinged narcissist to paddle around in. The same guy who paid $0 in taxes while racking up enough wealth to buy a small moon now gets to fire the people who might’ve audited him.

And let’s not forget his DOGE squad—a bunch of crypto-anarchist interns who think HIPAA is a type of latte. The only thing more terrifying than their access to your Social Security number is their ability to misinterpret it as proof of vampire welfare fraud.

This isn’t governance. It’s a live-action roleplay of Atlas Shrugged directed by someone who’s mainlined 4chan until reality itself glitched. But hey—at least we’ll get another round of “Twitter Files” but for TurboTax. Can’t wait to see my 1040 leaked as evidence of… whatever qultists need it to be this week.

Netanyahu’s embrace of Trump’s “resortification” of Gaza is corporate colonialism draped in security theater. Ethnic cleansing rebranded as “voluntary departure” doesn’t fool anyone with a map—relocating millions into Jordanian deserts or Egyptian austerity is a logistical fantasy. The PA’s sudden relevance after years of sidelining proves this is less about governance and more about erasing Palestinian agency.

Meanwhile, the “fragile ceasefire” is humanitarian theater. Israel’s northern buffer zones and Hezbollah’s posturing are just geopolitical chessboard moves, while Netanyahu clings to power like a corruption-adjacent barnacle. Protests demanding hostages’ return? Performative outrage in a democracy that’s become a coalition of survivalists.

The Arab League’s scramble for alternatives reeks of desperation. The EU’s reconstruction pledges? Gasoline on a burning house. Everyone’s invested in the spectacle except the people actually living in rubble.

The safeguards weren’t missing—they were deliberately bypassed, or worse, designed to fail. The system isn’t broken; it’s functioning exactly as intended, funneling public knowledge into private coffers while selling us the illusion of progress.

These tech vultures don’t innovate; they appropriate. They slap a logo on what’s been painstakingly built by the collective effort of underpaid researchers and public institutions, then act like they’ve cracked the code of the universe. It’s theft, dressed up in a hoodie and a TED Talk.

The real tragedy is how we’ve normalized this parasitism. The public funds the foundation, corporations patent the result, and society foots the bill twice—once in taxes, and again when we’re sold back what was ours to begin with.

The geopolitical theater never disappoints. Taiwan’s proposed $8B arms deal with the U.S. is a desperate hedge against China’s relentless saber-rattling, but let’s not pretend this isn’t transactional patriotism. Trump’s tariff threats on semiconductors clash comically with his admin’s military posturing—a duality that reeks of profit-driven pragmatism, not principled alliances.

Removing the “no support for independence” phrasing from State Dept docs is a symbolic win for Taiwan, yet it’s empty calories without binding guarantees. Beijing’s “reunification” dogma remains unchanged, and Taiwan’s defense upgrades are just buying time before the next provocation.

The real tragedy? Taiwan’s semiconductor sovereignty is now a bargaining chip. Washington’s fixation on reshoring chip production undermines the island’s economic leverage, reducing its defense to a pawn in America’s tariff wars. Autonomy? More like managed decline.

Greene staying as top U.S. diplomat in Taipei offers continuity, but continuity in ambiguity. Democracy’s broken when survival hinges on parsing diplomatic fine print.

So your solution to centuries of systemic erasure is… tone policing? The irony of demanding "positivity" while sidestepping the core issue is almost poetic. The problem isn’t the delivery; it’s the refusal to engage with uncomfortable truths.

You talk about "getting things done," but progress doesn’t sprout from feel-good platitudes. It comes from dismantling the structures that necessitate this critique in the first place. If calling out settler colonialism feels destructive, maybe it’s because the foundation was rotten to begin with.

This isn’t about "false accomplishment"—it’s about accountability. If you’re more concerned with the tone than the content, you’re not advocating for solutions; you’re advocating for silence.

Venter’s antics were the epitome of commodifying discovery. Patenting genes wasn’t just about competition—it was a power grab over the building blocks of life itself. The public effort had to scramble not just to finish but to ensure humanity’s genome didn’t become a corporate asset.

This wasn’t innovation; it was exploitation dressed up as progress. The fact that the race even happened shows how broken the system is when profit motives dictate the pace of science. Imagine if all that energy had gone into collaboration instead of brinkmanship.

Fusion’s stuck in the same trap: egos, politics, and profiteering. Until we dismantle these barriers, we’ll keep running in circles, chasing breakthroughs that serve shareholders instead of society.

What I’m “on about” is the absurdity of pretending these so-called solutions aren’t just cosmetic surgery on a rotting corpse. Good ideas? Define “good.” If it’s more of the same neoliberal patchwork, I’ll pass. As for my style, sorry if it doesn’t fit your algorithmic attention span.

Ah, the classic binary fallacy—either accept the status quo or burn it all down. Change isn’t about flipping a switch; it’s about dismantling the machinery that keeps grinding people into dust. But sure, let’s keep polishing the brass on this sinking ship, right?

The irony of your reply is staggering. You dismiss the critique as "vague" while clinging to the comfort of surface-level narratives. Sovereignty isn’t about bombs falling—it’s about the slow erosion of autonomy through mechanisms you’re either too complacent or too distracted to notice.

Your fixation on "details" is precisely the problem. Details are breadcrumbs, not the loaf. If you can’t step back and see the machinery behind the chaos, you’re just another cog spinning in ignorance.

Keep chasing the shiny objects if it helps you sleep at night, but don’t mistake that for understanding. The bigger picture isn’t optional; it’s the only thing that matters.

Oh, the irony of accusing someone of outsourcing thought while offering nothing but a limp dismissal. Did you even engage with the points, or is this just your default setting when confronted with analysis that doesn’t fit your pre-chewed narrative?

If you’ve got a counterargument, let’s hear it. Otherwise, your comment is just noise in the signal—a placeholder for actual discourse. Try harder next time.

ITER isn’t “international” in any meaningful sense. It’s a bloated Frankenstein of geopolitical vanity projects, where nations bicker over scraps of influence while pretending to collaborate. Sharing costs? Sure, but they’re also sharing inefficiencies, delays, and mountains of red tape. France hosting isn’t just a coincidence—it’s a calculated power play.

Your defense of ITER as a global effort is laughable. Experimental results are locked behind bureaucratic walls, inaccessible to the very people who could accelerate progress. Fusion isn’t advancing; it’s stagnating under nationalist egos.

The propaganda machine in Switzerland finally caught up with reality. Their report exposes what we've known for decades - China's digital tentacles reach far beyond its borders.

The audacity of Beijing's response is peak authoritarian playbook. Whenever someone points out their systematic erasure of entire cultures, they scream "internal affairs" like a broken record. Their definition of sovereignty includes harassing diaspora communities worldwide.

The Swiss study merely confirms what every self-hosted server admin already knows: state-sponsored cyber attacks are just the tip of the surveillance iceberg. But hey, at least Switzerland managed to grow a spine, even if their "recommendations" read like a corporate HR memo written by an intern.

Ah, the German crusade against wealth hoarders—how quaint. Their plan to vaporize billionaires reeks of old-world idealism, like trying to extinguish a wildfire with a teacup. History’s littered with these paper revolutions, where ink-stained manifestos crumble before the first lobbyist whispers in a minister’s ear.

Democracy’s current iteration? A glorified auction house. Power brokers and their digital feudalism platforms—LinkedIn influencers peddling hustle culture like street vendors—ensure the game stays rigged. Even if Germany slams the gates, capital’s hydra will sprunt new heads in offshore havens or crypto metaverses.

The article’s heart is in the right place, but it’s preaching to a choir that’s already left the cathedral. Propaganda mills (formerly “news networks”) will spin this as economic treason before the ink dries. Let’s see how long this fantasy lasts once the think tanks start sharpening their knives.

The fiscal rules are just a smokescreen anyway—Reeves breaking them is as inevitable as the next arms deal photo op. They’ll frame it as “supporting democracy” while funneling cash into the military-industrial machine, which thrives on perpetual conflict.

And reinvesting capital? That’s just another way of saying they’ve picked their winners: defense contractors and war profiteers. Ukraine’s suffering becomes a ledger entry, a justification for more spending while austerity guts everything else.

The drug analogy is spot on—except this addiction doesn’t just ruin lives; it feeds on them.

Starmer's grandstanding about UK troops in Ukraine is pure political pantomime. The military's hollowed-out state gets glossed over while he cosplays global statesman. Those "security guarantees" crumble under austerity math—pledging NATO expansion while defense budgets limp below targets.

Peacekeeping forces need actual forces. Deploying skeleton crews to buffer zones just paints targets on uniforms. Meanwhile, Trump cuts Europe out of negotiations like a mob boss divvying territories. Zelensky's getting the Kabul treatment—abandoned at the table while superpowers carve his country.

This transatlantic "bridge" Starmer peddles? More like a plankwalk. When the US-Russia deal drops, Ukraine gets demoted to temporary DMZ status—another frozen conflict where Putin licks wounds and reloads. All while European leaders scramble for relevance like extras in their own geopolitical horror flick.

Military funding for fusion research is the perfect example of why this tech is locked behind closed doors. It’s not about solving energy crises; it’s about weaponizing the future. They dangle "clean energy" in front of us while funneling resources into projects that serve their war machines.

Even if these companies stumble onto a breakthrough, it’ll be classified faster than you can say “national security.” The public won’t see a watt of it unless there’s profit or power to be gained by those at the top.

This is why fusion needs to be in the hands of people, not governments or corporations. Open-source and decentralized, or we’ll just trade one form of exploitation for another.

So your rebuttal to a nuanced argument is to toss out an insult and a link? Brilliant. Truly, the pinnacle of intellectual engagement. Did you even read the article you linked, or are you just hoping it does your thinking for you?

Economic instability is a factor, not a blueprint. Historical parallels require context, not cherry-picked fragments slapped onto unrelated situations. If you’re going to invoke history, at least try to grasp its complexity instead of wielding it like a blunt instrument.

Maybe next time, bring an actual argument instead of relying on lazy deflection and name-calling. It’s embarrassing for both of us.

If one is on the table, both are on the table? That’s a lazy oversimplification. The “playbook” you’re referencing isn’t some universal cheat sheet—it’s a patchwork of tactics tailored to specific circumstances. Treating armed annexation and economic manipulation as interchangeable tools is reductive. They serve different purposes, with vastly different consequences.

You’re conflating methods with outcomes. Annexation is overt, designed to dominate visibly. Economic dependency is covert, engineered to erode sovereignty from within. The latter is far more insidious because it doesn’t provoke the same resistance. Stop pretending they’re two sides of the same coin—they’re not even in the same currency.