Ben Mann

At best, would justify attacking Israel, it would seem to me.

A press controlled by billionaires through the property system is not a "free press".

Two allies ruled by fascist regimes ganging up on a common enemy, without being able to persuade their non-fascist allies from joining in, would be my first thought. Though if I wanted to make confident statements, I would collect plenty more information to base those statements on.

Don't know the details, so this is a general observation rather than an assertion it's the case here, but I can easily imagine a politician vetoing something on principle using wording like that, a kind of "say as little as possible" instinct believed useful for getting elected.

I've always put that down to you need to be able to laugh at yourself to do comedy (beyond mock-people-for-being-different-"comedy").

Capital is wrong in principle, it is an unacceptable use of state force which brutalises, ruins and kills many people just to keep a few in a life of luxury. Just stop enforcing capital, then you can't have a "billionaires and paupers" society in the first place.

A broader version of that is probably what made me a left-winger. Dig deep enough into right-wing ideas, and you'll always find something false. Since their basic goal is to produce reasons why the ruling class are better and deserve to rule, but they're not and they don't.

I could easily imagine the Eccleston series doing it.

Kaze no Tani no Nausicaä.

Few guns around in the first place on all sides, not so much of a prison-industrial complex, but the big one is policing by consent. A police officer in the UK is just some guy with some extra powers. Still bastards, but at least there's a limit to what they can get away with.

The root problem there is we're not taught in school how the society we live in fundamentally works, at all.

Radiation, even.

I assume TV is fine too: third episode from the end of Revolutionary Girl Utena, there's a scene where the two main characters feed each other poisoned things, then compliment each other on the taste. And I found I understood the scene despite being unable to explain it. Whole worlds opened up.

"Batman" to me is the character played by Adam West. (Though I don't really like superheroes generally, and also fuck billionaires.)

What sorts of things do they complain about? (Asked because I want to understand the world better, not out of scepticism.)

The people who made it are lying through it when they program it to sound certain about things it's randomly generating.

Naked mole rat on two legs, subtitle says "My name is Squealer!"

Considering that "villain" is derived from a word for "peasant", I think a "covertly the unsuccessful sort of hero" answer is appropriate:

"Biological sex" is evil liar speak for "first guess certified sex".

It's not "clarity", describing the first guess which got written on a piece of paper as "biological" is just a complete fucking lie. It's literally Orwellian doublespeak. A piece of paper being "biological", your actual mind and body being non-biological.

That is certainly true.

I've been thinking for a while that the one thing which could save us from modern fascism is it seems to be reliably incompetent. Possibly something to do with the Nazis being the monsters of popular culture forcing it to detach from reality more than in the 1930s.

Maybe a USB stick containing the full text of Wikipedia.

If they're thinking clearly, they should notice that "do nonconforming thing, get arrested" and "go shopping, get infected by careless person" are the same "freedom restricted by bad people" thing. But right-libertarians cannot think clearly or they'd realise capitalism is incompatible with liberty.

That was a question, not an assertion. I think that "rights for rich people" types will have a visibility advantage because wealth gives you that kind of power in our society, but I don't have good information about the absolute proportions.

I see what anarchism is based on as not "everything will be fine without police" but "having police is not the solution i.e. will always create more problems than it solves". (A question I regard as too hard to evaluate.)

Well, I certainly hope so, since good libertarianism should resemble a kind of softer anarchism.

Is that libertarians in general, or is it a minority of them who monopolise all the visibility?

The big thing libertarians need to realise is that capitalist property relations are a massive government restriction on basic human liberties like "eating enough food", and so the only sane libertarianism is the left version, and right libertarians are extremely confused (or evil).

I suspect the most common rules there would be sin rules, like "you can only take the drugs which are popular and normalised in our society", which definitely should not be in place.

It's not like it's hard to do masks in general libertarian terms. It's a conflict of two freedoms, like where you're allowed to shoot a gun, and the freedom to go shopping etc. without catching a disease is more important than the freedom to go shopping without wearing a mask.