Bonus points if you can type it out as incomprehensibly as possible
What about mushrooms though? They count as vegetables in the grocery aisle but they're more closely related to humans than any fruit or veg.
It's definitely a culinary thing, same with the biological category of fish (for which there isn't anything scientific about it at all) is ultimately up to the cooks and fishermen exactly what constitutes fish.
You see, the fungoid brainpan lacks space for the "courage" and "honesty" lobes
Quirked up white boys goated with the sauce are directly responsible for us heading head long into an alternate pocket dimension of sand eating insects hell bent on inspecting pocket galaxies.
the concept of internet moderators and permanentish bans is ableist against autistic people
This is kind of true, but I think bans can be "decolonized" by removing the morality of them. If it's just treated as a stern notification to log off instead of a judgement of character, it becomes much less ableist and painful to experience.
I don't think any of my opinions are really :jesse-wtf: material here on Hexbear. But if someone asked me this in person or on FB, I'd definitely get that reaction.
Ever have a Betta fish as a kid? Probably kept it in a bowl way too small for it with no real decorations and it does after repeatedly swimming into the glass or swallowing rocks? Or a hamster that would gnaw on the bars at all hours of the night? Or know someone with a dog that they don't walk, resulting in it releasing that energy through destructive behaviour? This is because they don't have enough enrichment and variety, which causes them to adopt behaviours as a mechanism to get their energy out, and people generally don't know better bc the pet store employees tell you what they need to in order to sell a specific product. This can be fixed by providing them with enrichment: a variety of different experiences, housing more suitable to the animals needs, things to do for fun, etc
Humans under capitalism are neglected pets in the fish bowl of society
This is a proven fact everyone agrees with
0/10 :jesse-wtf:
Check the John B Calhoun experiments to laugh at some racist and homophobic bad science that is strangley ignored by right wingers, despite their fixation in other pseudosciences, bad interpretations or just made up shit
Cosmically, there is an underlying meta-biological battle going on between fucking and cumming, and it lines up along political ideologies. Gorilla or bonobo? Duck or pig? We stand close by the inflection point.
I think capital is, in a rather real sense, the evil AI, the demiurge, and or Satan that all the Rationalists, weirdos, and or Evangelicals are worried about.
Capital is the paperclip maximizer tech bros worry about but about profit instead of paperclips
Literally true. Rationalists are some of the most ideologically inconsistent people on the planet.
I believe that Calvinism was the ideological nidus of what later became known as just-world hypothesis, and by extension, liberalism, and has some curious resonance with the microcosm known as role-playing games: metagaming. Calvinism is the metagaming of religion, and applied to its adherents, both aware and unaware, that metagaming makes society and life itself as miserable and ruinous as a tabletop RPG group that has a runaway unchecked metagamer.
What I mean by metagaming is how Calvinism (and its somewhat more secular counterparts such as The Secret and capital-R "Rationalism") gamifies religion and indeed the divine itself: "The dogma said this about what our deity knows. Therefore, we can gamify that (specifically, the belief that the "elect" were already chosen before they were born at the beginning of time and that such saved souls could never be un-saved because the divine can never make mistakes or take anything back, and with a little fanfiction magic, "signs" of being saved can be steered toward being rich and powerful because, again, the deity doesn't make mistakes) in a way that makes the rich and powerful seem not only pardoned for their excesses, but righteous for them." And just like how Calvinism gleefully abandons everything inconvenient about the prior religion's canon in favor of praising the rich and powerful and seeking to make them more rich and powerful, a metagaming munchkin at a tabletop RPG table gleefully ignores the social and interactive story goals of the game in favor of "winning" and dominating the group as well as its host.
I believe that society and the planet itself are suffering from a centuries-long case of runaway theological metagaming that got the core of its most insidious and malevolent ideology from John Calvin. Fuck that guy.
How's that?
That's pretty good. I wholly agree that the people comparable to "meta-gamers" are the same type of people who are ruining the fucking planet, largely by harnessing/weaponizing capitalism.
The religious stuff is interesting and I follow it, I guess you're arguing that it was a synthesis of emergent capitalism and the religious foundations that it had to reconcile with - at this point I guess it just seems superfluous but perhaps that is just me being very alienated from the religious communities.
When I've been constructing games there are always those who seek to dominate by bending/breaking the rules which were clearly intended to foster the "balance" of said game. These people are useful for refining rules/mechanisms to a point which properly contains them. At no point should these monstrous individuals not be contained - I think this is one of the many tasks set before socialism.
I pretty much entirely agree but I don't think it started with Calvinism. At least if I'm understanding you correctly, Calvinism may have been an intensification of this in the West but this gameification of religion can be seen all over the place. Such as anywhere where there's a divine right of kings sort of situation and the subsequent hoarding of wealth and the hierarchies that necessitates. And that can be found not only in Catholicism going much farther back but religions all over the world.
Calvinism was a very important theoretical development in Christianity and western religion and western philosophy. It's really solidified the belief that good things happen to people because god loves them and bad things happen to people because they're sinners. Before that the dominating view was that everyone was a sinner together. Calvinism is fundamental to the development of Capitalism because it's when the predominant religious and philosophical belief came to be "Fuck you poors I got mine because god loved me". Wealth was no longer seen as a bad thing but in fact viewed as proof that you were literally chosen by god. And since you were chosen by god anything you did was by definition righteous, and your continued accumulation of wealth was proof. Not to say Europe didn't exploit a whole lot of horrors before Calvinism, but Calvinism was none the less a key change in how European society thought and functioned.
Calvinism didn't start it but it streamlined the glorification of monsters.
To me the difference is that Catholicism, for as fucked up as it had been, had a "good works" expectation and the saints, while gamified "winners," were nonetheless "good works" champions, and even tied to specific deeds for why they were sainted.
Calvinism on the other hand metagames the entire idea of salvation so much that the "elect" are just richer than the rabble and they are divinely favored because everything is according to divine plan and no mistakes can be possibly made. There are no "saints," only rich assholes that are comforted as a reward for being comfortable.
Saint and Calvanism are very different. You pray to saints so your ship doesn't sink or you find your shoes or your cows don't get sick. In Calvanism you pray because god predestined you to be wealthy and powerful and people who are chosen by god pray, so you pray to close that self-fulfilling loop.
This is a pretty mainstream view by a lot of historians of religion and historians of American religion especially.
It's on the Chapo YouTube, Matt just rambles about whatever but one of his big theses involves the relationship of Calvinism to capitalism and how much it's fucked us
I actually have a harder time listening to audiobooks than reading text. It's weird but that's my problem. Still, thanks for the recommendation, I may check it out.
I think that businesses all more-or-less are predicated on the cultivation of a human addiction/dependence structure. I think addiction isn't something that some people suffer from while others don't (per se) but more of an innate human feature which guides us towards repetition based on what evolution has coded into our instincts. Addiction takes wildly different forms in each person but everyone is a slave to their addictions; for most people it is just addiction to convenience and entertainment, others caffeine, others alcohol, others adrenaline, etc. The merchant class were the people who recognized this and learned to profit immensely from being the enablers of the addictions, whatever their forms. We can see this with companies that run at a loss when they first emerge, similar to drug dealers passing out samples, they plant the seeds for addiction and once you are hooked they can begin to harvest profits.
In such a society it is those who hedge their addictions through self-denial that are able to wrest the most control. Through experience the people who best avoid addiction are those who view pleasure with extreme skepticism as a general rule. But a society that revolves around this is one which necessitates an infantilized, helpless population.
Proposed solution: Seize the means of production
yeah a lot of human activity seems to just be the pursuit of pleasure (carrot) and the avoidance of pain (stick).
I think a person needs to properly internalize that thought to escape the cycle - but habit-forming addictions (especially those that culminate in physical withdrawal) can be insurmountable hurdles for individuals to conquer
I absolutely agree with this. Capitalism is built on the three Ps - Poison, Propaganda, and Ponzi schemes. The Anglo-American empire has elevated all 3 to their ultimate form.
Having to abstain from pleasure to a degree that is considered odd by everyone around you is very frustrating. Being human sucks.
Were you implying that the bourgeoisie tend to come from the families of those that originally abstained from pleasure? Because that could at least explain why Jeff Bezos sits on a massive pile of gold when using it to equalize humanity would probably make him happier.
Not necessarily but I do think that there is a cult of self-denial that is passed down purposefully through the generations. I don't think the amount of "tee-totalers" (or w/e they are called) among the bourgeoisie is a coincidence; I think they view addictions as a liability if not a weakness.
And sadly, I think they are right about it being a huge liability. It has a delegitimizing effect in what is this so-called "meritocracy".
Well, materially this still results in communists having to overcome their addictions to organize. Maybe. I don't know, theory is confusing.
Lenin/Mao agreed
The fight against addiction is one of the major tasks of the proletariat. Liberalism's inability to deal with rampant addiction is for the same reason it is unable to dispel widespread poverty - a lack of political will; disasters are opportunities for profit within capitalism AND such things are disorganizing forces cast on the working class.
I think they meant from an drug/substance abuse perspective and not "everything is an addiction" perspective. I'm unsure if we're going to be able to get people to give up fiction books entirely, for instance.
"We are not here to tell them what they want- We are here to tell them how to get it."
Oh, yeah I forgot what comment we were bouncing off of.
Yeah, much to my dismay Lenin and Mao weren't subscribed to my blog.
Addiction is most noticeable when considering substance abuse but sometimes I think the more subtle ones are just as impactful due to the extent which we tolerate them; "bread and circuses", etc.
I don't think my aim is to live in a world devoid of pleasures but rather one where consumption is always preceded by production - people who consume fiction write fiction, too. People who listen to music, also play an instrument. People who collect shoes know how to cobble - with gifts being the manner in which people consume things they do not participate in the creation of.
I think you're putting the cart ahead of the horse, and vilifying a quirk of humanity that's been weaponized. The issue is not that people consume things produced by others, which is a good thing and should be encouraged, but that capitalism has turned this tendency into a form of control.
"Precluding" consumption with production and interaction with a field implies people can only consume that which either they themselves produce, or something someone else makes within the same field as them. I find this problematic on two fronts, depending on what you're saying:
If you are saying that people should only be limited to consuming that which they produce, this would completely short-circuit and destroy the entire beautiful exchange of artistic interaction. Human society would be reduced to basic discussion, necessity, etc, and culture would cease to exist.
If you are saying that people should only be limited to consuming that which is in their field, I disagree entirely. People's passion for multiple things at once has been the source of numerous sources of wonderful art, and this wouldn't really be possible unless they specialized in one of those things and teamed up with others who specialized in other ones. Plus, we're unlikely to achieve situations where people have lots of free time anytime soon, and so this would imply that only those in the intellectual class should be allowed to consume art, or those willing to burn the midnight fuel. This is problematic for obvious reasons.
This also raises cause for concern with other forms of pleasure: Should one not consume food cooked by a chef unless they themselves are one? Should one not fornicate without being a producer of sex toys?
My question is more along the lines of what we, as communists in the imperial core, should do- Should we abstain from sense pleasures? Or is that useless self-flagellation? Should we avoid attachment to notions such as community and love? Or are those useful motivations for "the cause"? Are gatherings for games and food a source of camaraderie, or distraction?
Well bear with me - this is a chain of inchoate thoughts in a thread meant to wax a bit bizarre.
But, let's see where the chips fall.
Your notion of “precluding”...
If you are saying that people should only be limited to that which they produce...
If you are saying that people should only be limited to consuming that which is in their field...
I think I can sufficiently address these qualms by going deeper into the "gift" aspect. The productive society I'm envisioning is simply one where things become more artisanal and less commodified; let's say we've reached the much-speculated "money-less" society. So, people no longer have the ability to command the labor of others via the market simply by having accrued abstract currency - my hope is that this leads to less consumption of goods for the sake of collecting (or any other form of storing non-liquid value) because absentee ownership and the possession of any item not yielding use-value to the owner will become a fruitless endeavor in such a society. So, as we can no longer simply purchase amusement/advantage in the form of commodities on the market - in fact I surmise we cannot purchase at all at such a point - we will simply have access to the fruits of society which have been deemed socially necessary (not going to comment on what this would exhaustively contain but food and shelter would be obvious ones). Beyond things we need for survival and without the ability to coerce labor with the mechanisms of capital - how are we to get our objects of delight? Gifts seems to be the only manner - and as such, most human labor will likely be spent becoming quite good at performing artisanal tasks for said production. So, to get such artisanal objects (formerly commodities) we'd have to make them ourselves, receive them as gifts, or achieve political mandate for them to become "socially necessary".
My question is more along the lines of what we, as communists in the imperial core, should do- Should we abstain from sense pleasures?
No - but during this crusade against capitalism I think it is a good idea to eliminate all forms of addictive/controlled behavior where possible. Where that continues past the death of global capital is up to each person I guess. As long as society is re-geared towards improving the human condition rather than simply harnessing it for profiteering then I think addiction will wane as a social malady.
Or is that useless self-flagellation? Should we avoid attachment to notions such as community and love? Or are those useful motivations for “the cause”? Are gatherings for games and food a source of camaraderie, or distraction?
I think we need to be critical of our consumption patterns and not allow pleasure to inhibit the requisite organization. I think the main force disorganizing the working class is psychological.
I think I can sufficiently address this qualms by going deeper into the “gift” aspect. The productive society I’m envisioning is simply one where things become more artisanal and less commodified; let’s say we’ve reached the much-speculated “money-less” society. So, people no longer have the ability to command the labor of others via the market simply by having accrued abstract currency - my hope is that this leads to less consumption of goods for the sake of collecting (or any other form of storing non-liquid value) because absentee ownership and the possession of any item not yielding use-value to the owner will become a fruitless endeavor in such a society. So, as we can no longer simply purchase amusement/advantage in the form of commodities on the market - in fact I surmise we cannot purchase at all at such a point - we will simply have access to the fruits of society which have been deemed socially necessary (not going to comment on what this would exhaustively contain but food and shelter would be obvious ones). Beyond things we need for survival and without the ability to coerce labor with the mechanisms of capital - how are we to get our objects of delight? Gifts seems to be the only manner - and as such, most human labor will likely be spent becoming quite good at performing artisanal tasks for said production. So, to get such artisanal objects (formerly commodities) we’d have to make them ourselves, receive them as gifts, or achieve political mandate for them to become “socially necessary”.
That's probably where my rub was. I would consider gathering to observe a song or thousands of people logging on to CommuStream.net to watch the debut of a brand new kind of animation which causes hallucinogenic trances to be community events, and not gift-giving per-say. This is probably able to be attributed to my idea of gifts as something that should be part of a special occasion. When in such an artisanal community, gifts would just be an everyday occurence among acquaintances, most likely done out of the pleasure of sharing one's own work.
No - but during this crusade against capitalism I think it is a good idea to eliminate all forms of addictive/controlled behavior where possible. Where that continues past the death of global capital is up to each person I guess. As long as society is re-geared towards improving the human condition rather than simply harnessing it for profiteering then I think addiction will wane as a social malady.
I think we need to be critical of our consumption patterns and not allow pleasure to inhibit the requisite organization. I think the main force disorganizing the working class is psychological.
Ah. So then my last question would be one of practicality. You implied in your root comment that almost everyone is addicted to something or other, or even that all sense pleasures are addictive. This makes sense in a society where suffering and meaninglessness is prolific enough to make this a practical requisite to retain one's sanity. But because this has been harnessed for control, this impulse is directly contradictory to revolutionary tendencies.
So then, I wonder, is the resolution to this? Pleasure is a method of rewarding behavior by our brain. Almost everything humans are supposed to do is encouraged through it. And so almost everything inherent to human behavior is addictive. This is where the conflict comes up- There is an internal conflict in every organizer and leftist between the biological urges of humanity and their own ideology. How do we resolve this? It has been observed many times throughout human history that people who try to abstain entirely from pleasure either 'relapse' or find much worse outlets. See: the stereotype of the religious pedophile. While this is an inaccurate stereotype most of the time, it does paint the difficulty of repressing all of one's own desires for pleasure, likely because of it being hard coded into our brains. So how do we, as communists aware of the nature of the dialectic, resolve this?
That’s probably where my rub was. I would consider gathering to observe a song or thousands of people logging on to CommuStream.net to watch the debut of a brand new kind of animation which causes hallucinogenic trances to be community events, and not gift-giving per-say. This is probably able to be attributed to my idea of gifts as something that should be part of a special occasion. When in such an artisanal community, gifts would just be an everyday occurence among acquaintances, most likely done out of the pleasure of sharing one’s own work.
Yes I think gifts "to the community" from individuals or groups would be conceptually cool and good. I definitely don't aim to bar any sort of product or practice in a puritanical manner - and as I'm taking a lot of liberties with the whole "money-less" society I concede that the evolution from where we are to that point would be hard to articulate. Perhaps, just a gradual automation of what constitutes involuntary labor would gradually push us towards it though when no longer prohibited by the political ambitions of a capitalist class.
Ah. So then my last question would be one of practicality. You implied in your root comment that almost everyone is addicted to something or other, or even that all sense pleasures are addictive. This makes sense in a society where suffering and meaninglessness is prolific enough to make this a practical requisite to retain one’s sanity. But because this has been harnessed for control, this impulse is directly contradictory to revolutionary tendencies.
So then, I wonder, is the resolution to this? Pleasure is a method of rewarding behavior by our brain. Almost everything humans are supposed to do is encouraged through it. And so almost everything inherent to human behavior is addictive. This is where the conflict comes up- There is an internal conflict in every organizer and leftist between the biological urges of humanity and their own ideology. How do we resolve this? It has been observed many times throughout human history that people who try to abstain entirely from pleasure either ‘relapse’ or find much worse outlets. See: the stereotype of the religious pedophile. While this is an inaccurate stereotype most of the time, it does paint the difficulty of repressing all of one’s own desires for pleasure, likely because of it being hard coded into our brains. So how do we, as communists aware of the nature of the dialectic, resolve this?
That is a prescient point. In a way I think that this might be one of the reasons why a DotP (and/or vanguard party if you want) is so invaluable - through a collective leadership body of people who have become as principled as humanly possible I think a benevolent authority could be expressed which allows for individuals to retain their sanity by experiencing the leisurely pleasures of life without endangering society at large. The post would not be abandoned, it would be maintained through a rotation.
But, to get to that point my fear is that we do need revolutionaries with zeal which allows them to push the boundaries of human potential and discipline so that said DotP can be erected - and perhaps the more ordinary people who shed degrees of their addictions voluntarily in the meanwhile the lighter the work will be for those revolutionaries who doubtlessly will be coordinating with the masses.
All makes sense, thank you for clarifying so much and continuing to discuss this.
I think a lot of these concerns will be significantly lessened as material conditions worsen, though of course with the trade off of "people are starving and dying". It could be argued that our material conditions are already as bad as they can be, but I would contest that the pandemic and death from it is unfortunately quite easy for most to ignore. This is not a good thing, and is obviously partially a product of our pacifying culture, but I think the majority of it is just because of selfishness and apathy. People won't really care until they're the one's starving, and unfortunately the disabled and those affected most by Covid were already the ones people refused to listen to. So, those already primed through theory and current action will be much more likely to become "zealots" of communism at this point, driven on by the hunger in their own stomachs. Or more precisely, once Capitalism starts directly contradicting human biological behavior en masse, this contradiction within socialists will partially resolve itself, though not entirely, as discipline will still be necessary.
I'm unsure if entirely eliminating one's desires and want for pleasure is possible, but "stealing" practices from religions and spiritual practice is definitely a promising proposition. Practice of meditation, rituals, mantras, and sometimes even just belief can lessen the difficulty of discipline. This wouldn't necessitate actually adopting those religions and spiritual practice's goals for oneself, but they have been dealing with stuff like this for a while, so to say.
Finally, the easiest solution is to just make pleasure and communist action one and the same. This isn't possible for all actions, but choosing to make as much of "leisure time" as possible just disguised communist praxis could be a legitimate method. For instance, things like the Black Panther's breakfast days and even just organizing politically explicit game clubs.
I have no be-all and end-all answer, and I doubt you do as well. But it's worth thinking about still, I think. Thank you for discussing all of this.
You're welcome, comrade. It was a good discussion to be had and I think we are both refining our thoughts here so that we can better articulate them later.
I agree that religion has a lot to offer on the topic - I know a lot of people have distaste for it here and elsewhere but I think religion can be reclaimed from capitalism's corrosive influence; not only would they provide a basis for praxis in terms of sustained discipline but such a movement could re-align communists with the masses who are still largely devout.
Love the comment on making the everyday leisure political, too. Many obstacles to deal with on the way to that but it needs to be done so that the common person can exercise their politics as often as they want and in a manner that adds up.
This is completely irrelevant, but i think it's worth mentioning that apparently there's a branch of Buddhism, that re-contextualizes it's practices as elements and weapons in the class struggle, and claims that monkhood and the seeking of Enlightenment branch from misconceptions of Buddha's teachings, claiming that he was actually a proto-Marxist, not a typical philosopher or preacher.
Now obviously this is a very extreme, if not simply outright insulting branch of thought to normal Buddhists, and it was probably made by a Nazi or some shit, or I'm misremembering what I heard about it, but it is at least an example of how people with no faith (like, most likely, me) in any kind of religion or even spirituality can still benefit from it and ultimately even influence it.
I don't think it's really worth starting a whole discussion about it, but it is heartwarming to know (at least with Liberation Theology) that weirdo commies that can't shut up about Lenin exist in every social circle, and we just have to connect with them.
Greek mythology is made up of people just orally posting their cool new fanfiction stories.
So what you're saying is the agricultural revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race?
IMO Garden of Eden myth is really a story about being eternally ejected from the innocent harmony of pre-agricultural life. Prometheus and other similar mythical figures gesture to it as well
The real reason agriculture is the human original sin isn't because we don't want to go back, it's because those that don't become much more powerful and can displace those that do go back. Same for agriculture, and all technology in general.
We can't go back. The total carrying capacity of the planet without agriculture is a few tens of millions of people. Pretty much everyone would have to die to for a non-agricultural economy to be sustainable.
I lurked on a forum in 2009 where someone had an avatar with 4 quadrants, Low Tech Low Command, Low Tech High Command, High Tech High Command, High Tech Low Command. Their purported arrow of history moved through these stages in that order.
I don't think this one is downright psychotic compared to some of these here, but I am somewhat coming around to this idea which I have never been able to express elsewhere; I believe that we must be very careful what depictions/stereotypes we apply to men -- whether progressively feminist or traditionally conservative -- not only for the sake of men but because we apply them to trans women 10x worse. It's partly why I dislike the level of self-flagellation I've occasionally encountered in progressive men, and the way that some trans women virulently shittalk men. (As example, I saw an amusing comment chain recently where a trans woman peddled in the typical dehumanizing analogy that 'men are like loaded guns and you don't know which one will go off', utterly ignorant to that TERFs think the very same of her.)
Now, certainly, men are more conservative than women and are less accepting of transgender people; these are facts and are understandable reasons, even if that should not constitute hatred of any but conservative men. But allow me to expand and show better what I mean.
There's several reasons I am slowly coming around to this take, but the most recent that I found was in remembrance of an old ContraPoints controversy. Now, I will not shittalk her here -- she is in a very difficult position as a public trans woman and I hope she does well. I think some people do not understand the utter frustration that living life as a trans woman often engenders, and how this causes behaviors that appear outwardly overly-callused; it is extremely frustrating knowing that from the time you come out, you will essentially always need to try at least 2-3x as hard as a cisgender person to get the same results. You can do it, but it's still fundamentally bullshit.
But I remember a tweet ContraPoints made once where she essentially said that one ought to have a good reason why they identify as non-binary, because 'surely a story that begins and ends at "I'm not a man" just isn't convincing'. (Paraphrasing.)
While certainly dismissive of non-binary identity -- no one needs a reason to identify as NB -- what I found rather interesting is not what she said but in how she phrased it; that you need a better reason than merely I'm not a man. The wording implies that maleness is a sort of deserved punishment or a sin that one would naturally seek escape from, thus we must make sure they do not escape without proper reason. A common TERF argument is that transgender women identify out of manhood to escape punishment and that transgender men identify out of womanhood because being a woman is such a terrible existence, that one would be crazy to not wish to escape it. (Few point out the irony in that many TERFs utterly despise being women, whereas trans women generally love being women.)
And I highly doubt ContraPoints would have phrased the tweet as "surely you need a better reason than I'm not a woman", partially because her audience would have raked her even more fiercely for it, but because ContraPoints herself has certainly struggled with self-loathing in some areas. I am almost certain that she has encountered the typically vicious arguments transgender women have amongst themselves, and are occasionally expected to self-flagellate over, about whether they have experienced a 'male socialization', a 'female socialization', or perhaps a 'transgender socialization'; I am certain ContraPoints has once, as many transgender women have, viciously interrogated her own behavior and tried to scrub away any behavior she perceives as 'male'. (Of course, no behavior is truly gendered, which is precisely the hell of it; one can never truly be free and the anxiety, ala the factory in Factorio, 'must grow'.)
Now, I will not add to that idiotic debate by giving credence to any part of it. What I will say is that it is a rather curious debate, in that the only people who pick 'male socialization' are those usually enthralled in the grip of some self-loathing themselves. The answer, much like a trial on Cardassia, is decided before the debate. But no one once asks whether there should be any shame to having had a male socialization -- it certainly does not diminish one's gender by any iota! -- because the unstated assumption is that men are taught to abuse, to rape, to murder women, that a male socialization is something one should be ashamed of. Even the realm of identity is not safe; some transgender men report feeling guilty over transitioning, as if they have transitioned to the evil side of an intangible war and hate 'inflicting' themselves upon women by dating them.
That is not explainable by mere voting patterns.
But, of course, when no one questions the unstated assumption, the entire debate acts a little like navigating at sea using Ptolemy's insights; you may certainly dock that ship, but you will never truly understand the issue. (For example, that no one ever points out that more men support a hypothetical wife beating her husband than a husband beating his wife -- that men murder each other & themselves far more than they do women, with male suicides outnumbering female murder victims by 10x and are always more lethal regardless of method -- and, the most obvious and simplistic one, that a socialization in which you are told every day from age 3 to "never, ever hit a girl" is rather difficult to term a misogynistic socialization that accepts abuse against women -- well, all interesting insights yet perpetually unexamined.)
Anyway, this has already gone far too long, so I'll close by saying all love to trans people. I don't terribly know the solution for all of these things, merely that it seems occasionally to me that there are some damaging ideas that have snaked into many good-intentioned people's skulls, and yet, oftentimes, in trans people, seems merely to be a politically-acceptable method of self-harm; a form of politics that lives as a personal torturer in one's skull.
Consider crossposting this to c/effort and c/menby, this is a good post.
sea travel is fucking magic you read boats speeds being much slower than land vehicles yet somehow boats get places crazy fast over the vastest expanses possible
you're really gonna tell me a cargoship that can't even hit 30mph is crossing the pacific fucking ocean in 15-30 days ?(and why is it so variable? :thonk: )
theres something fishy going on man, idk what it is, a sea-god or a sea-cult that all the sailors make offerings to and be gay for
Sea water is salty because all of the fish fucking.
Still think drinking sea water is cool? Think again.
also theres these boats now that are powered entirely by the wind but can actually go like twice as fast as the wind is going, you cant tell me that isnt sorcery
With the right sails you can sail as close as I think 20 or 30 degrees of the wind. So not quite straight in the wind, but not far off.
Nope. the windmill on the deck is driving a turbine which is either driving a propeller directly or driving a generator that drives a propeller. The wind isn't pushing the ship, it's just spinning the wind mill, and the prop is pushing the ship.
It's not, because you're reducing the kinetic energy of the wind, so it's fine. It's still wildly counterintuitive lmao
It's hydrodynamics and it's fucking boss. I don't understand any of it, except in a very vague intuitive "That drawing makes sense" way.
the wind at a 90 degree angle to the boats direction of movement can still add momentum to the boat, but does not cancel out to a relative speed of zero as a wind directly behind would. the margins are slim so theres a shitload of drag mitigating features like hydrofoils that lift almost all of the boat out of the water.
15 x 24 x 30 = like 10,000 or something, or a little less than half way around the globe.
witchcraft. falsehood! you won't fool me you siren of the sea!
they go through the night where a car would pull over at a rest stop for half the time, also the time variation is weather, having to fight wind and current will slow you down, and in really bad storms youre more focused on getting over the next wave than making headway to your destination
This isn't :jesse-wtf: Foucalt wrote an entire book about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish
Prisons, factories, offices, and schools are all set up on similar lines for similar reasons. Hell, the high-school built the year after I left even had pods and guardposts directly inspired by prison designs so the student could be observed by security at all times and quickly isolated from each other if the administration wanted to.
Already-pop philosphy by your favourite lolbertarian
1/10 :jesse-wtf: might confuse some boomer
