My personal definition for my region is based on freezing temps: never gets below freezing? That's summer. Gets consistently above freezing in the day but still often below at night? Spring/fall. Essentially never gets above freezing? Winter.
Winter starts here early to mid November, it's silly to think it doesn't until Dec 21st. Same with summer being in full swing long before the third week of June.
Having distinct seasons is nice I'll agree, although it can be extreme sometimes (over an 80°C temp swing between the end of Feb and end of June a couple of years ago).
Winter grows on me more every year, although the last few years have seen a trend where we get more random melting periods in the middle of winter and way less snow which kinda sucks for all the winter fun.
This anti psych med bullshit is dangerous. Drugs snapped my brain back to baseline normalcy and away from suicide ideation in a few weeks. I didn't need to take them for long, but it was a switch that needed to be flipped and I couldn't do it by myself.
I thought the message of the comic was that we need to change society to better manage our mental health better not that medication was bad. Like we prop up our society on medication to get people to handle it. But I don't get messages like that clearly so may be wrong.
Yeah I see that, but also maybe it means that the fact you have to be medicated to deal with the system highlights some inherent deficiencies in the system itself?
I don't always convey my thoughts well, sorry, I meant that too with thinking we should improve society, so we can have better mental wellbeing without pharmaceuticals.
I wouldn't see it as anti meds but more like our world fucking sucks... Wich is objectively true, especially because depression is at least partially a genetic infection and thats just fucked up.
it's not explicitly anti med. I'm pretty fundamentally anti med for a few reasons. Primarily just the fact that i believe environmental factors are the most prominent influence on day to day life, i think focusing on those to make yourself more productive, and functional is better than being hamstrung to a bunch of drugs, that might probably work, but they might stop working, or you might not be able to get them, or afford them, or they might have really bad side effects, or health insurance is a bitch, etc...
Interestingly, i've seen a lot of rhetoric along these lines (your post included) among people with ADHD, which i understand, but i have to wonder if that's due to dependence on the meds of some form. Which isn't exactly the fault of the individual, when paired with society and it's expectations, it's almost explicitly what you would expect to see, which is a little weird to me. It gives me vibes i dont quite jive with and im not sure how i feel about it.
So, I struggled massively with ADHD symptoms in my teens and 20s. Despite failing out of school, and struggling in all the classic ways, I was never diagnosed.
My folks "didn't want the kids on pills" and so despite needing help I was just called lazy and never received any help.
The best way to mitigate the symptoms is with stimulants. I self prescribed caffeine. If I was in a different environment that could have easily been something illegal.
I was never diagnosed and I wish I was, because if I could have focused on classwork in high school, I could have went to college, and I could have started doing work that interests me at the beginning of my 20s instead of the end of my 20s.
You need to examine your shallow attitude about medication. It's "I don't like it because other stuff is better", and a bunch of anxiety around what if what if what if.
What if you deny your child the one tool that actually allows them to reach their potential? You try these "better" options and waste their youth instead of using methods that are proven to be reliable?
You know it's not too late to still get a diagnosis right? I got mine at 21 or something, but I've seen people in their 40s or 50s get their diagnosis and finally get some relief or explanation for their symptoms.
I don't really need it at this point, it doesn't interfere with my job and I'm having less problems around it.
My life feels like it's getting easier and I feel more organised.
If I was still procrastinating a ton I absolutely would.
Anyone that feels like they are struggling and don't know why or how to make it better should talk to their doctor!
My folks “didn’t want the kids on pills” and so despite needing help I was just called lazy and never received any help.
this is realistically a bigger problem though, your parents just didn't care about your well being very much.
You need to examine your shallow attitude about medication. It’s “I don’t like it because other stuff is better”, and a bunch of anxiety around what if what if what if.
i've examined it plenty enough, it's a personal opinion of mine. I'm not forcing it on others, and im certainly not having kids. You'll notice a lot of problems with them are as you said, what ifs, that's true. But i simply don't trust myself to maintain something like that, or for that matter, trust anybody else to maintain it for me. Doctors can be very helpful, but sometimes they aren't, or maybe they are but insurance just refuses to cover your meds because they decided that you did one too many instances of illicit substances in your past, or who knows what fucking reasons they have.
If i had a hypothetical child, it would be up to them, i unlike other people, give other people free will. If they believe that medication is going to be beneficial for them, who am i to tell them what to do. Ironically, you seem to be arguing that i should be supporting drugs unquestionably, which is objectively bad. However i'm not holding that against you, i'm just making my point here. There are certain problems, which most consider to be outweighed by the positives, i however, disagree.
I do not make the rules, i just exist in proximity to them. As does everyone else.
I’m not forcing it on others, and im certainly not having kids. ...If i had a hypothetical child, it would be up to them
That's awesome.
supporting drugs unquestionably
Nonono, I'm supporting healthcare unquestionably. There's science behind best practices, and when it's drugs or therapy or surgery, best practices should be considered.
I get that science is improved all the time, and things like lobotomies and such are found to be more harmful than good... That harm is the exception, and getting more rare.
Scientists and researchers who make a career of examining these practices should be in charge of creating recommendations for changing these practices. It's too complicated a field of study to leave choices to legislators, parents and other layman.
Nonono, I’m supporting healthcare unquestionably. There’s science behind best practices, and when it’s drugs or therapy or surgery, best practices should be considered.
i suppose so, but even then we still only think that drugs are helpful. Simply because we have no better solution, and i guess from that aspect it's true. But then again we also invented heroin as an alternative to morphine. Whoops.
There is certainly a place for drug advocation, but if you are supporting healthcare (or more accurately, medical science) as you say, there is also a place for discussing the potential downsides and negatives to them, without bias. Because otherwise, you cannot have a scientific environment. And you risk doing more damage to people than necessary, or worse slowing down the time of progress. Which is objectively bad.
I mean for example, it's well established practice and knowledge that not everybody reacts to the same drugs the same way. It's on an individual level basis. For some individuals, it would follow that the recommendation might be none.
Some fascsist do this, absolutely. Others, to appear moderate, kick out minorities and "just" jail dissenters. Will they eventually start murdering people? Absolutely.
But nearly no fascist nowadays advocates for murder. They must first radicalize the people once in control via salami slicing tactics. If you look for fascists, do not look for people advocating for murder - they will be noticeable enough anyways. Look for those who can be described with the picture in this post.
Not to be defending Fascists, but those you describe are the Nazi style ones.
Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece too had Fascist dictatorships and those pretty much did not care about Jews or minorities and whilst they were all autoritarian and happy to use state violence for oppression and suppression of dissidents, the only ones who did anything close to systematical murder were the ones in Spain in their early days and their targets were mainly those they deemed "Communists".
By comparison Zionists are more murderous than all of those 4, though not as much as the Nazis, and consider and treat a whole different ethnic group as "human animals" than the Nazis did.
In fact the use of specific ethnicities for Fascism in that table is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist with a very specific slant on who their "good" ethnicities and "bad" ethnicities are: even without going into the whole Israel thing, just look at Modi in India to see Fascism in action whithout the perpetrators being White or the victims Jews.
is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist
Or, maybe, they're just using the most well-known instance of fascism in history as a concrete example, in order to not overcomplicate the message. Jumping to accusations of racism at the slightest suspicion is not gonna help anyone.
They're doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.
In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn't really a thing.
Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.
Racism is seeing race as what makes people "goodies" or "badies". The "good" races and "bad" races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of "good" and bad "races", it's somebody who thinks it's not race that makes people be "good" or "bad".
It's pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be "badies".
Yeah, you're right on that point: you're dividing people into behavioural groups using "English speaking world" as identity tag rather than a race.
So the prejudice you voiced was using "geographical area of birth defined by language spoken" to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by "geographical area of birth".
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.
Put those two together, in context, like you might do if you could read things, understand them and infer basic meaning, and that's actually very clearly what you were saying.
In case you can't follow it because for example you are trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you said: you said I divided people into good and bad by race, then you corrected yourself and said my prejudice was based on geography. That prejudice was clearly established as believing in good and bad people.
You're right, that really wasn't hard, because you absolutely did say that.
You clearly don't have anything honest to say or you'd have said it. You're 0 for 3 on actually saying something that makes sense yet. I don't hold out hope for future comments.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.
You're pressuming that was about you rather than me making the counter-point to the posture you were supporting.
It's funny that you repeatedly demanded me to point an exact statement and yet when faced with an equal demand, it was fine for you to "infer" meaning, though that was previously not fine for me to do.
It's called a double standard.
Curiously and having in good faith taken that original riposte of yours (before you repeated it again, in slogan-like fashion) about me having unfairly infered something about your statement, I actually apologized for that since I had indeed presumed too much.
Well, at least it's well beyond doubt (certainly you exhausted the original benefit of the doubt) to me that you are not making points in good faith and what drives you in this exchange is something else than a desire for an open and fair discussion, so you do you an I'll do me.
Motherfucker you came at me with a challenge to a position that I clearly didn't have, and your "apology" was obviously a snide attempt to make a second equally ridiculous accusation.
You also said I "voiced prejudice". (EDIT: In fact, you called it an "accusation", your words, so it wasn't some academic detached notion that you were attacking, it was my conduct directly) Now, if that's meant to mean something other than you accusing me of racism or whatever "geographical" prejudice is, go for it. Explain yourself.
I never said anything prejudicial towards any group. Once again, if I did, fucking show it. Explain your working.
So far I am working off of vague insinuations and technical "well ackshually"s from you. If you have something to say, fucking say it.
If you're obcessed with the race of the people involved, you're probably a racist.
Describing Fascism as something that only victimizes a specific ethnicity - Jews, curiously forgetting other Nazi-victimized ethnicities like Roma, not to mention non-ethnic groups such as those with disabilities - is also a long running hasbara strategy of Zionists to portray themselves as impossible to be Fascists, all the while behaving as such to quite an extreme level, something extra poignant right now when they're in the middle of committing Genocide.
Even if all that was just the product of naivety of the author rather than something else, to limit one's description of Fascism to only Nazis is an insult to people who lived under other Fascist dictatorships, something which just so happens to include me - just because the dictator in my homeland "only" had censorship, a secret police, political prisioners, forced labour of the natives in the "colonies" in Africa and kept the country incredibly poor except for the 9 families of the Regime, doesn't mean that shit wasn't Fascism because he was "equal opportunity" when it came to the ethnicity of the people he oppressed and exploited.
(PS: Also, thinking that it's the race of a person that makes them behave one way or another is the very dictionary definition of racism. It's quite irrelevant which race you think are "goodies" and which are "badies" - it's the thinking that it's the race that makes people "goodies" or "badies" that's racism)
The simplest explanation for somebody only seing the race angle of Fascism, only the Nazis and only a specific ethnicity they victimized when there is at least one other that they equally victimized (the Roma) is racism.
I like how these giant golf courses need to have 10 gardeners per acre, while these communist/socialist-era 40 years old mini golf concrete courses can have 20 people playing per acre, withstand a tsunami, and you have way more fun.
Also actually having to fetch the ball so the environment isn't being polluted.
No VPN, it all has proper location access. I even tried it with a local restaurant that I didn't think was a chain, and it found one in Tennessee. I'm like 10 minutes away from where I told it to go.
Fuuuuuuuck Amazon is even worse, if that's possible. You used to be able to search for a product and would get that as the first result or at least on the first page. Now, they just return shit that is vaguely related but is a paid sponsor or someone manipulating their search algorithms.
Right. Everyone knows wife jokes started on Reddit. Never before in the history of mankind did anyone ever make a wife joke until Reddit came along. Thank you, arbiter of Wife Jokes.
I agree with the principles of what you're saying, groupthink is certainly bad, but usually people align with other people with underlying foundational values and beliefs. Ie, people tend to support gay rights if they also support trans rights, because they stem from similar areas of prejudice. Intersectionality and all that.
Usually, the truly unique perspectives are for often contradictory views, like being an Anarchist Capitalist, though even then there are still groups of people who think similarly.
I agree with the principles of what you're saying, groupthink is certainly bad, but usually people align with other people with underlying foundational values and beliefs. Ie, people tend to support gay rights if they also support trans rights, because they stem from similar areas of prejudice.
But the foundational values vary from culture to culture. My country has a lot of people who are socially conservative, but not that many who support free-market economics. In your own example, we have a long tradition of transgender people, and they have laws protecting them from discrimination. On the other hand, homosexuality was a legal grey area until a few years ago, and their marriages are still not recognised by the law. Iran is an even more extreme example here, with gender reassignment surgery being state-subsidised, but homosexuality still illegal.
So I wonder to what extent political positions are universal, and to what extent they are an accident of history.
Culture plays a huge part in what is normative, yes, but actual positions tend to support other positions by proxy, like a web.
Essentially, it's understandable that a Socialist would also support FOSS development, as FOSS also rejects private ownership and the profit motive. However, it's less understandable that a huge supporter of the profit motive would love FOSS as much. They can reason that people should have the choice, but it breaks down just a bit.
The current government in my country is definitely right of centre, and are pushing for Linux adoption, largely on a 'we should not be dependent on foreign companies for the software we use' plank. Although, to be fair, Linux was able to get a foothold in the first place because a communist state government tried using it in the 2000s. They succeeded, leading other states and the union government to follow suit.
Yep, you can advocate for leftist principles or leftist originated things as a right-winger, it just takes a large amount of justification in order to do so.
Being an anarchist capitalist really just stems from having a different definition of anarchism than most anarchist denominations (I'm not one btw, I've just spent a lot of time speaking to different types of anarchists in the past).
I know it's just a sidenote and not your main point, just wanted to point it out.
Ironically libertarian was originally a synonym for anarchist, and was also stolen by the right.
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...
-- Murray Rothbard
Many still use the term "Libertarian Socialist" to specify they mean libertarian in the original sense.
Yes, in practice. They call themselves Anarchists because Anarchism is "cooler" and as a way to differentiate themselves from Libertarians, even though functionally they are almost identical.
True, but the concept of an Anarchist government is also an oxymoron. Somebody has to make or carry out decisions in any group larger than 30 people. Even if the association is voluntary (like a club or sports team), there are leaders.
AnCaps just take the mental gymnastics to the next level.
Not sure I entirely agree with that. FOSS is an excellent example of what Anarchism could look like; experts and those doing the work are the ones who make decisions, but anyone can fork it and there's no actual power being held by devs over users. That's not really a government.
Decentralized, horizontal structures are still structures, but can be fully Anarchist. Anarchism isn't just the absence of structure, it's a complex web of flat structures.
Voluntary association isn't anarchism by itself. That's just a club or volunteer organization. Anarchism specifically advocates for the replacement of the state with voluntary free association. No, your book club isn't necessarily "Anarchist".
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including nation-states,[1] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations.
Yes, you're partially correct, but speaking through me rather than to me. There are countless forms of Anarchism, Mutual Aid for example is a structure proposed by Anarcho-Communists. People can freely associate and work together to create FOSS style software. I didn't say FOSS was Anarchist, but that FOSS is an example of how Anarchism might look.
Anarchist government isn't really an oxymoron if the governing is done via direct participatory democracy. There would probably be people in charge of carrying out specific policies (and indeed that is what we see in IRL examples like the Makhnovshina or the Neozapatista GALs), but doing something is not the same as deciding what to do.
I have seen comrades talk about organizing councils in large regions through delegates that work on this principle. They aren't supposed to make decisions for the smaller regions they represent like congressmen. Instead, the regions internally discuss what they would like and then send a guy or gal to advocate for the policies they agreed on.
Anarchists see "the state" as a top-down structure where some people have power over others and preserve that power through a monopoly on violence.
A form of government where no one has the power to make decisions for other people wouldn't really be a state by this definition.
Ancaps do be insane.
Thank you for tolerating my wall of text. It may seem like a waste of time, but ambiguity wastes more time later on. Cheers.
Idk, I feel like a lot of these political terms have multiple definitions depending on time and context. The word "liberal", for example, has very different meaning depending on which political group you ask, not to mention its evolution over the course of history, and its meaning in different countries and political systems.
There are many valid and important criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, but purposefully misunderstanding what people mean by the word isn't a very strong one imo.
I'm not purposefully misunderstanding it. Anarchism was founded on the ideas of rejecting Capitalism, the state via a monopoly on violence, and advocacy for structures like Mutual Aid. Capitalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism, and requires a monopoly on violence in order to maintain property rights.
The point here is that the Anarcho-Capitalist position is just a Libertarian Capitalist position where the holders wish to be cooler, basically. They redefine anarchism, the state, and hierarchy in order to uphold their views, it's just a leftwashed Libertarian Capitalist position.
Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It's not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don't have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it's not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it's basically just fantasy capitalism.
As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to "life, liberty and property" are to be upheld by "decentralized" (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies.
Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn't inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.
On a more meta level I agree that it's just an alternative "cooler" version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that's not the point I was trying to make.
I understand your point, I just think that it's just cannibalization of terms and mutilating them for aesthetics. Terms change, of course, but actual anarchists never stopped using the terms they created correctly. It hasn't necessarily adapted over time so much as been cannibalized by LARPing Capitalists.
Its similar to the Nazis adopting Socialist aesthetics, despite being far-right fascists. The Nazis weren't Socialist in any actual way, and murdered Socialists, but wanted to cannibalize a popular term to gain support.
Because accuracy requires that you make a reasonable distinction between truth and fiction, and that requires context, meaning, understanding. Hell, full humans aren't that great at this task. This isn't a small problem, I don't think you solve it without creating AGI.
The biggest flaws with gardening. 1) Not everyone has land 2) Often you have to pay more than just buying groceries 3) Doesn't scale.
So you manage to get everything to work. Congratulations, you've just reinvented modern farming with all of the same fundamental problems. If you want a genuine change of the system you have to go to the foundations and not repeat the same steps that got you here.
Between 100% of people growing their own food and 1% growing for 99% of the others is a wonderful range of opportunity we should return to. One person or corporation owning and managing hundreds of hectares with the help of giant machines doesn't scale either, it's currently destroying the planet. The guys on the big tractors are the grandchildren of the people grandma was forced to sell her garden too. I'm sure the human species is ingenuous enough to come up with something that guarantees people's dignity and feeds everyone.
they also remember when you were drunk, fighting with your spouse, forgot to pick them up, escaped the FBI in a drug submarine, stole
their phone and sold it for Oxy, and carved a pentagram into the neighbors front door.
A recent Unlearning Economics Live video had Cahal mentioning that it was pretty easy to identify essential workers, and if that's the case we should earmark housing for those workers in the relevant areas. If it's been so easy to classify them, there should probably be other similar accomodations (eg tax breaks) from a payment perspective.
solarpunk memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.