No, he wasn't. Thanos was just recycling the same Malthusian crap that's been used by hundreds of years of politicians to justify forced sterilizations in America, famines in British India, and China's one-child policy.
Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again.
First of all, when societies face scarcity, families have *more* children because they need more capital to get the same resources. Fertility rates are negatively correlated with a country's level of development.
And second of all, the scarcities that cause these population pressures are a direct result of governments taking away people's power to act in their own interests.
If you look through history, you see a startling fact: famines do not occur in democracies. Ever.
Human populations are not mindless herds that need to be culled for the sake of a fixed supply of resources. They are complex, thinking societies that adapt to the resources they have.
Malthusian engineering causes the very mismanagement it claims to be addressing.
I know this kind of sounds like a libertarian argument, but it isn't. I'm not saying all government action is bad, I'm saying anti-democratic action is bad. Malthusianism is the ultimate rejection of democracy. It's a rejection of the idea the people can govern themselves.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is a whole class of Twitter trolls who direct swarms against anyone who criticizes Ron DeSantis. Fried is obviously a top target, but they also go after small-time commenters. It's eerily cult-like and doesn't seem organic.
Manchin has to know the JLVRA isn't getting through the Senate either. Among the GOP, only Murkowski backs it, and if we add gerrymandering to it, even she might back out.
What does he do when his pet voting rights project fails and the *only* option is ignoring the filibuster?
I don't think Manchin really has a long game anymore — I think he genuinely believed he could make the Senate work with no rule changes, and he's backed himself into a corner as it's become obvious he can't.
What's frustrating is it was totally unnecessary for him to do this. Other filibuster-supportive Dems like Tester & Feinstein left open the possibility they'd change their mind if the GOP operated in bad faith. It would've been so easy for Manchin to say that too, but he didn't.
And it's objectively false that Obama did not build a party bench. His VP is now president. His Labor Secretary went on to chair the party during a blue wave. Several of his administration officials, like Haley Stevens and Colin Allred, were elected to Congress winning red seats.
Obama took the reins of the Democratic Party at a very hard time, when rural Dem areas were in the middle of realignment but suburban GOP areas hadn't yet begun theirs. The party fundraisers were stretched thin trying to prevent losses that were basically inevitable.
Hey @JoeManchinWV — the GOP just blocked investigating an attack of their own workplace, even after Dems agreed to everything they demanded.
If you think the filibuster will let you pass the PRO Act, the John Lewis Act, or anything else you endorsed, you're kidding yourself.
I understand your position, @JoeManchinWV. I know Robert Byrd was your friend and mentor and taught you reverence for the Senate rules. I know it's hard to be in the middle of a 50-50 Senate representing a very red state.
But democracy is at stake. You gotta get over it.
The modern filibuster has *never* been the norm. It was used sparingly until the 2010s when the GOP became radicalized.
Remember how they forced Dems to drag an ailing Robert Byrd from his hospital bed for votes? He cried "shame!" He knew the GOP was breaking his beloved Senate.
Here's the thing: we were never going to get a bipartisan commission on the Capitol attack.
We can't model this after the 9/11 commission. Republicans were fine with a 9/11 commission because they weren't the ones who fucking flew the planes into the towers.
Look, the 9/11 commission did great work and gave insight into our intel failures. But for the sake of political consensus, it both-sidesed Bush & Clinton's roles in security in a way that isn't 100% accurate.
That isn't possible with a 1/6 commission because IT WAS ALL THE GOP.
This is an utterly ridiculous argument. Statues are not how we record history, they're how we pick specific people and events from history to *valorize*.
If @mtgreenee simply wants her kids to know about Hitler, there are thousands of books about him and what he did. There are museums that show clips of his rallies, the cattle cars he shipped Jews in, and recreations of the gas chambers.
A statue provides none of that context.
And if she wants her kids to know about Satan... well, he's in the single bestselling book ever written. And further, he's not even a historical figure, he's a religious and metaphorical construct, so there isn't even any history to record there, let alone valorize.