It seems to be a bit of both. The article does cite a lot of comments agreeing with what the older relatives said and getting a bunch of likes. So some people are laughing at how horrible and racist it is, but some are laughing at the unapologetically saying what we’re all thinking aspect.

A lot of racist jokes are just people saying their biases out loud and unapologetically, and then the racists laugh because they agree, and they get to affirm those beliefs. You might get some people on the other side laughing at the absurdity, but for the people of the race being made fun of, it just feels like the attack it is. Especially when the subject is serious and you can’t distance yourself from it, and nothing is more serious than genocide.

Like if you showed these to a Palestinian child they’d probably become depressed and scared by it. If you showed these to a boomer israeli they would probably laugh at it and say they’re right.

Going to steel man this since theres obviously no one on here answering this question seriously. Not a republican and don’t agree with all this, just imagining what my republican dad would say about this:

For ukraine and Europe, we have no interest in protecting them besides sentimental attachments. Ukraine is not our problem, it’s Europe’s and if they want to dump money into a lost cause by all means go ahead, but leave the u.s. out of it unless your going to compensate us for it. The u.s. isn’t threatened by Russia, we have an ocean, the world’s largest navy and nukes to protect us. The larger threat is China and we should be focusing on them, not russia which can barely invade it’s neighbor, much less march across Europe and the atlantic. Europe can handle its own problems.

For Canada and Mexico and tarriffs in general. We need to bring manufacturing back to America and revitalize the rust belt. We can’t do that if companies find it more profitable to go over seas and pay people pennies when they’d have to pay Americans much more. The only way to get them to come back is to make it too expensive to import things.

This is all about putting America first. For decades America has been spending billions to protect Europe and has been sending billions of dollars over seas to build factories owhile factory after factory closes here in the u.s. We need to stop all of that and spend our money in America for Americans.

Feel free to use this comment as a punching bag, I don’t care, just trying to give OP an actual answer if this was a legitimate question and not some rhetorical question seeking affirmation on how dumb the Republicans are. They are, don’t get me wrong, but just say so and don’t dress it up in questions like this.

Ape hierarchies, at least within the troops, are mostly about mating not resource distribution. It’s not like the alpha male gets first pick of the fruit and all the other chimps wait until he’s done and then go in hierarchical order, they just disperse and grab what they can.

If you want to go down an essentialist path most pre-agricultural societies were anarchic. There may be a chief but they “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe. The chief, or anyone really, couldn’t hoard resources because

1. they couldnt monopolize violence and coerce people since there’s no specialization in anything much less violence so violence becomes a numbers game.

2. There’s only so much you can carry. Pre agricultural tribes were nomadic mostly and when the tribe moves camps you have to carry everything with you. So even if you were able to hoard enough food that won’t rot you won’t be able to carry it to the next camp.

3. Because of the above, wealth isn’t really a thing. This forces cooperation because without wealth, the individual can’t protect themselves from hardship. Selfish individualism only works if you’re able to build up some wealth to act as a buffer for leaner times. If you don’t have that wealth then you’re reliant on your social connections so you tend to cooperate and redistribute because it’s in your best interest to stay in good standing with the group so they will help you in harsher times.

All this changes with agriculture and the invention of wealth, first in grain then in gold and then stocks etc. Now your dependence on society is directly porportional to how much wealth you have, to the point where really rich people can fuck off to a cabin or island and never work or contribute to society ever again.

Violence specialization also becomes more or less a thing, increasing up until the invention of firearms at which point it becomes more of a numbers game and the hierarchies lessen.

All of this is to say that hierarchy is not natural, but the result of the ability to accumulate wealth combined with violence specialization and monopolization. If we get rid of those two concepts then anarchy may take over, how we do that in the modern world is another question.

It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.

You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.

Eh, they can’t really do anything about it. My brother had a tesla, pre fascists Elon, and someone through a rock at the windshield while it was parked. The camera captured everything and you can clearly see the guy but he couldn’t do anything about it. The cops aren’t going to go on a manhunt through the city for a vandal, this was in Detroit they have better things to do, and the guy looked unhoused anyway so he wasn’t going to get him to pay any way.

America doesn’t work like that. Due to the way the electoral system is set up only two parties can be viable at any given time. The only time you can create a new party is in a realignment, eg. When Lincoln formed the republican party as an explicitly anti slavery northern party and the democrats became the pro slavery southern party. Prior to that it was the whigs and the democrats, which were aligned around issues other than slavery.

So unless the progressives can force a realignment along some new issue and subsume a major party, creating another party would just be handing a lot of elections over to the Republicans.

This is why lemmy was so vehemently against Jill stein and the greens even though most people on here agree with her politics more than kamala, because they saw her as sabotaging the democrats chances and handing the election to trump.

Also hijacking a party is easier than building a new one and if you gain control you can use the power of that party to shift opinion. Most voters these days vote based on there team, or more recently against the other team. So if the democratic party started pushing a green new deal then the rank and file would fall in line, if nothing just to stop the Republicans. You can see this in how trump hijacked the Republicans. If you showed a republican project 2025 in 2015 they wouldve called it absurd, but now most are in support of it.