https://twitter.com/ayeletw/status/1325293154380210176?s=19
I kinda disagree, the system is sociopathic, and if you haven't risen goo-covered from the matrix pod and yanked the liberalism out from your throat like that feeding tube thing, you're morality is going to be built on sociopathic foundations. The amount of ideology-reinforcing background radiation makes it difficult for people to see the world the way we do, but at the same time, the ever-worsening living conditions imposed by capitalism make it easier. Dialectics are a harsh mistress.
It's bullshit how a bunch of incels stole the whole redpill thing when it was lowkey an allegory to gaining class consciousness. I mean it's even called the RED pill.
We can definitely reclaim it. I already use it.
Although actually I think it was supposed to be an allegory for accepting being transgender, but either way it rightfully belongs to the left.
Woops, wrong comment.
But anyway, I mean the decision to inflict collective punishment on the poor of a state that slightly favored Trump overall is more cruel and callous than the general population. I don't think most liberals, even in our capitalist society, would applaud letting poor, elderly people freeze to death just because the general public there doesn't support their politics.
I think this is a special breed of lib.
Maybe, but I suspect that this is in line with where politics is in general. You wouldn't be surprised to see this or even much worse from a conservative talking about liberals, because we usually think of them as the "amped up on fear and hatred" set, but libs have been playing that same game for some time, and since Trump, it's been to the same high-stakes degree as conservatives. So if you're a decent lib, like someone who pays heating bills for poor people, who considers the Democrats to be the sober adults in the room, and they've been in white-knuckled panic and rage for 4 years straight about the moral blackhole that is Trump, seeing people support him probably makes them feel the way we do when someone supports American interventions, that is to say, unworthy of moral consideration. I'm not defending her, I hope you understand, I just think, based on tweets like this and conversations I've had that the tensions between the two formal political identities in this country are at a fever pitch on both sides.
maybe if the dems care about improving the material conditions of the rural folk they wouldnt vote republican
Is micro dosing drugs like LSD or stimulants the new bourgeois trend now? Seriously people are talking about this shit everywhere, if you want to do drugs just do it lol
Microdosing LSD for work productivity and problem solving efficiency has been a popular idea among Silicon Valley tech types for quite some time now.
The issue is some tech bros are either not alienated from their labour as much, or have been lulled into thinking that.
I know in the one full-time job I truly enjoyed, and in my side gig singing, I get annoyed when my body gets tired or reaches its limits. When you're doing something you care about and your value isn't being stolen as much, you really do start to look at ways to do your job better, even if it's just working out how to clean up faster at the end of day. And I am literally the laziest person in the world. I hate doing things so, so much.
Of course, no one else is in that situation.
I'm fairly certain even worker ants and bees are more capable of enjoyment than these husks
Imagine trying to take LSD, of all the fucking drugs out there, and use it to improve productivity. Just take Adderall or cocaine like a normal bourgeois silicon valley type/ Wall Street banker.
spoiler
This is a joke based on stereotypes, please don't actually do cocaine
They should follow their idols like Steve Jobs and just go on a month's long camping trip with tonnes of LSD and hallucinagenic drugs, fuck that silicon valley nerd shit
That's the thing, they don't really want to do drugs. People like this will tell you they're "afraid of losing control" and such. They don't want something earth-shaking, they just want to feel happy again without the hard part. That's why they're libs.
That's some nerd ass shit. I mean as someone that has had to take plenty of strong opioids and others for various reasons, a bad trip isn't going to ruin your life or anything. Yes you may say some embarrassing shit or have a massive panic attack but as long as you have good people with you you're not going to die or anything. While the risk of addiction is always there and I'm definitely not trying to trivialise drug use or addiction, if a complete fool like me can basically self manage and wean myself off what is essentially morphine lite, it goes to show that responsible drug use is possible in some form. (So long as you don't do heroin or really addictive substances) Makes me wonder how libs would react if they experienced any substantial change
Unjerk: Mutual aid implies long term consistent aid between an interdependent group, a social safety net built by a large group of people who all know one another
Rejerk: It's charity but when overly online leftists do it
I feel like the words themselves imply a difference in hierarchy. Someone giving charity is in a position of power or privilege over the one receiving charity, whether intentional or not. Mutual aid is at least as much about building a community as it is about material support.
Probably a lot of overlap in between the two. But I'd like to think mutual aid is something designed to be permanent and used by everybody in the mutual aid group.
So like, families in a neighborhood knowing each other well enough that each can call upon the others if they needed an extra blanket might be more mutual aid than charity.
A family that had extra blankets (or went out and purchased blankets) to give away to those in need but would never need to ask another family for an extra blanket, probably more charity than mutual aid.
mutual aid is solidarity, and should challenge the systems that create hierarchies
charity is hierarchical, and takes for granted (ie, works within) those systems that create hierarchies.
I think also though when someone refers to "charity" they are usually referring to big nonprofits or wealthy people philanthropy. Idk the exact definition of charity or charitable, but I suppose you could make the case that mutual aid is "charitable," or that "charity" does not necessarily need to be this hierarchical, systems-enforcing act. And I suppose mutual aid does often include some aspect of "charity."
But in our current vernacular, charity usually refers to hierarchical giving which seeks to enforce those systems that make charity necessary. It's a temporary reallocation of resources. whereas mutual aid seeks to challenge those same systems which charity upholds. mutual aid builds up sustainable communities, not communities which remain dependent. The difference is where the saying "solidarity not charity" comes from.
Charity is when you make someone show income statements and pray with you before you let them go through the food pantry. Mutual aid is when you just say "Welcome comrade, take what you need!" As someone who has been on both sides, there's always with charity an undercurrent of you MUST be grateful and you MUST jump through hoops to prove that you're worthy and needy and you MUST let me tell my friends all about how wonderful I am because I helped you.
Look at the early mutual aid societies, workers banding together into a co-op to provide healthcare funds for instance. Or the Building societies where workers used collective power to build and sell houses with interest free loans.
Mutual aid is mutual, the understanding is that when you give it is in the expectation that they will pay back in when they can and when you are in need, the same service will be provided, without guilt or hierarchy.
Charity by contrast is simply giving. It's still good and useful, and some types, particularly the very old established religious charity types like alms are almost mutual aid in how they are done in a communitarian way. But there's no expectation of building solidarity and a communal resource pool. It's rich person gives to poor person, one way.
Philanthopy is charity on steroids, with the one way relationship emphasised. Look at the Gates, trying to fix the world's problems into a box of their own devising with a top down hand like some sort of capitalist central planner.
