FanonFan [comrade/them, any] @ FanonFan @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

54

Joined

2 yr. ago

Hope they die painfully of heart failure

As far as bourgeoisie with class consciousness, most of the ones who aren't failchildren probably since they actively participate in class warfare, but notably warren buffet has spoken about class warfare and iirc the CEO of BuzzFeed studied Marxism or was in some way adjacent to it, I don't remember the details.

As far as class traitors, Fidel Castro was the son of a well-off landowner and likely could have lived a fairly comfortable nonrevolutionary life if he hadn't been so ideologically driven. All revolutionary efforts have class traitors on all sides, can't think of any off the top of my head.

It's rare for a person's ideals to entirely misalign with their material interests, as seen here, but you'd hope that at some point she'd be like, this is enough power, enough money, I can now materially support the undermining of my own class while still remaining comfortable in retirement

throws an insult and gets insulted back

"Grow a thicker skin"

Lmao real self awareness

From the start, right? Like chattel slavery and settler colonialism is about as unequal as you can get

I mean, a person's senses aren't supposed to be infallible, but I see no utility in elevating baseless conjecture above them. The "brain in a vat" problem is fun and all but it's based on zero positive evidence, just a lack of negative evidence. On the other hand the senses are giving us continuous and reproducible and interactible information about the world around us, which despite its inherent subjectivity can be communicated with other people's perspectives to approach and approximate an objective understanding of things.

Now when you start shifting from abstract to concrete epistemology, things like symbols and language games and power structures and ideology become important facets to examine. What filters and tensions are influencing a person's perspective? What mechanisms might be elevating or silencing their perspective socially?

We can and should be skeptical of our senses, but in a productive or dialectical manner, testing them against reality and other perspectives in efforts to approach a more concrete understanding.

I was impressed by how streamlined and intuitive EndeavorOS (with Plasma) is out of the box when I threw it on a friend's computer. Will probably switch to it myself shortly.

Selfishness may have been selected for tens of millions of years ago in our evolution, but as pre-humans became social animals it's clear that selfless or other-centric thinking became strongly selected for as well. You otherwise couldn't have a species that's almost entirely other-dependent, throughout the whole life but especially for the first 10-15 years of it.

Humans can't sustainably exist outside of a society.

No sarcasm here. I'd never recommend people do anything illegal, especially on a public internet forum. Like I said, voting and baby steps are already good solutions to impending global catastrophe.

I'm glad most of these problems can be solved by small lifestyle choices, and that by consuming slightly differently as an individual, I can have faith that I'm personally preserving the world for future generations. And once people see the profoundly ethical consumption choices I make, they'll start to follow suit, and there'll be a massive ripple effect centered around my consumption that spreads across the whole world as people switch to paper bags and only eat meat three days a week. If people's choices were influenced by their material environment rather than the spread of ideas, we'd be forced to think of ways to change their material environment, which seems a lot harder than just changing people's minds.

I'm glad that most of this impact is caused by individuals and their consumption habits, because it's easy to convince people to consume differently. If these problems were disproportionately caused by corporations, governments, and militaries, then we'd have to change their minds, and they can't be simply talked into acting differently. There'd have to be some risk to their bottom line or material interests, perhaps some sort of immediate threat to the people in charge, which would be difficult for individuals like us to enact within the bounds of the law and pacifist social norms.

I'm glad most of us live in some form of democracy where we can vote for initiatives and people who will address these pressing issues. Voting is more important than ever because of this.

In a hypothetical world where this weren't the case (say elected representatives had shown a long track record of ignoring the demands of their constituents and brushing these kinds of problems under the rug, for instance) it would unfortunately be our ethical duty to take matters into our own hands with more radical action. Since politicians would value the profit of fossil fuel corporations more than our well-being and the world's future, we'd have to find some way for individuals to impact the bottom lines of these companies, possibly by drastically increasing the cost of doing business, perhaps by increasing the cost of maintaining their machinery somehow. But I'm glad I can just vote for people who can be trusted to use their state power to solve these problems peacefully and legally.

Mass murder considering how little control the people most effected by this have over it.

The recent Deprogram episode about climate change is interesting.

She's taking a page out of Trudeau's climate plan

In the process of deconstructing work "ethics" and capitalist "productivity", it's important to replace it with something more meaningful than individualism or hedonism. While it's fine to do nothing, fine to do things you enjoy regardless of whether they make profit for someone else, it's also good to do things that better yourself, others, and society (even if that concept has been co-opted and corrupted by the profit motive). I see too many people "escape" the rat race either by finding people to exploit or sinking into escapism like [more than a reasonable amount of] video games or drugs or whatnot.

Lmao

Still in the running for top 10 websites on the internet. Critical support I suppose.

I mean the idea is that good urban planning would enable shorter and more frequent grocery store trips. Rather than a supercenter supplying everyone within 30 miles, requiring long drives, you'd have things distributed by need, i.e. general food stores every couple miles, more specialist places potentially farther away. Our current layout and shopping habits are contingent on car infrastructure and massive federal subsidies.

Would also decrease waste and increase general health, since fresher, less processed food could be purchased.

Not saying he doesn't but the winky face makes me think the intended meaning is tongue-in-cheek or taking the piss out of people accusing him of working for the CIA. Like how we joke about being on Xi's or Soros' payroll.

If that's the case this isn't an admission, more the opposite.

Adhd

I have a few dozen books. A third I've read all the way through, the rest I've picked up and put down or skimmed.

It helps to have a lot of options so that I'm more likely to find one that clicks and holds my attention for longer.

Plus I frequently reference books for specific info or quotes.