CuriousCat Archive Page 46 of 202

  2. Priests and tribal leaders are good examples. I don't see how it's possible to have a society without necessarily giving some people power over others. And the larger a society gets, the more people have to be put in positions of power to administrate it. Which grows the divide between those with power and those without, and always carries the potential for corruption.

    in response to I think the anarchist premise is closer to the truth, the problem (in my view, at least) is that a functioning society can't exist without the consolidation of power. How do we resolve that contradiction?

    yes, but if you acknowledge priests and tribal leaders, then you see there are many forms of authority and organization other than a government. and we can say, with accuracy, that a society may not be possible without consolidated power, but that doesn't mean that power must be a government.

    a central question I have is whether a society can just be a federation of small-scale authority with minimal ability to abuse power rather than a large, centralized authority. I have too many irons in the fire to delve into anarchist theory at the moment, but it's a frontier I aim to explore!

  3. okay but is it fuckin good or is it literally the best game ever made

    in response to thoughts on Disco Elysium?

    fuckin good

  4. I don't think all Anarchists assert that governments should not exist, but that hierarchical governments shouldn't exist. One could imagine governments that are completely democratic which no consolidated power, and I don't think it really possible to eliminate government in complex civilizations. You need some coordinating mechanisms for maintaining infrastructure and resolving disputes and regulating access to hazardous locations and tools.

    Or would you use a word other than "government" to describe groups of humans cooperating and organizing to manage industry, trade, and justice systems?

    in response to The smaller the government, the freer the people?

    I'm not an expert on anarchist organizing. to my VERY LOOSE understanding, anarchists are likely to support systems where power can be consolidated in situations where it's needed and then swiftly dissolved once the task is completed, or where power changes hands on very short cycles (like, weekly). basically, organization and consolidation still exist, but nothing you could call a "state."

  5. So like a less intense version of Reciever on a sense?

    in response to i think period weapons are often really good for exploring new styles of play in shooters; a shooter that takes place in the old west should have guns and gunplay that feels period appropriate, with revolvers that reload slow and maybe break-action shotguns that reload fast. can you think of any shooters that really take that concept and run with it? the only thing that comes to mind is something like Call of Juarez Gunslinger and even then i feel like they don't lean into it as hard as they could. i'd like to see a game set during the civil war or something where gun tech was barely getting into what we might call modern

    WAY less intense

  6. I think the anarchist premise is closer to the truth, the problem (in my view, at least) is that a functioning society can't exist without the consolidation of power. How do we resolve that contradiction?

    in response to The smaller the government, the freer the people?

    why do you feel a functioning society can't exist without consolidation of power? and how loosely are you defining "functioning society"? or, for that matter, "consolidation"? is a parent a consolidated power? a priest? a tribal leader?

  7. you get to pick one beverage that you get a lifetime supply of. your body will treat it as water, so you can drink as much as you like. you can't sell it, you're the only one that can benefit from this supply. what beverage do you pick?

    will it still have its original effect on me? like, if I pick a caffeinated beverage, does my body treating it a water mean it won't give me energy? if it's an alcohol, will it still get me drunk?

  8. i fucking loved my time with this game but i got distracted from it for a few days and now it's been almost a year after leaving it on day 2. what would you do in this situation?

    in response to thoughts on Disco Elysium?

    start fresh!

  9. The smaller the government, the freer the people?

    for me, we either accept the democratic premise that the government is how the people express their liberty, in which case it should be expansive, or the anarchist premise that consolidated power will inevitably be corrupted, in which case governments should not exist.

    I have no use for small.

  10. Why doesn't Link have nipples in Breath of the Wild?

    canonically Hylians have six nipples, but y'all weren't ready for that

  12. you looking forward to slayers x: terminal aftermath: revenge of the slayer?

    mmm, I have a curiosity about it. my takeaway from the demo was that it was nailing its vibe but I couldn't tell how actually fun the game would be, and whether the game being "good" would mess up the vibe.

  13. i think period weapons are often really good for exploring new styles of play in shooters; a shooter that takes place in the old west should have guns and gunplay that feels period appropriate, with revolvers that reload slow and maybe break-action shotguns that reload fast. can you think of any shooters that really take that concept and run with it? the only thing that comes to mind is something like Call of Juarez Gunslinger and even then i feel like they don't lean into it as hard as they could. i'd like to see a game set during the civil war or something where gun tech was barely getting into what we might call modern

    check out Outlaws! you definitely reload quicker than makes sense for the period, but you have to reload EVERY BULLET INDIVIDUALLY, which is really tense.

  14. Why isn't National Socialism just what it says it is—socialism with nationalistic traits?

    because nothing they do is socialist? because they enrich capitalists and take money from already disadvantaged minorities? because they arrest socialists and throw them in concentration camps?

    like... socialism has to have some kinda action behind it, not just be a word you use.

  15. That's not the point. The point is that revolutions haven't happened in countries with average income above $20,000 (because people have more to lose than "their chains", and therefore hoping for it to happen here is unrealistic.

    in response to If it had happened in any country that had average income above $20,000, I would be less skeptical of it.

    can you tell me your source on that? I'm having trouble googling it. I'm curious whether it's a flat number or if it's a coefficient of money held, wealth gap between the median and the wealthiest, and cost of living.

    also, the median dropping below 20k in the states is not out of the realm of possibility.

  16. The publisher kind of took the game from the developers though

    in response to thoughts on Disco Elysium?

    it did, yeah

  18. thoughts on Disco Elysium?

    it's fuckin good bro

  19. Those four things I think tend to cost a lot more than most folks would lose having their pay made 20ks.

    in response to If it had happened in any country that had average income above $20,000, I would be less skeptical of it.

    you'd be amazed how inexpensive things are when you take profit out of the equation. we have the resources, labor, and will to feed, house, and care for everybody. this ephemeral fourth thing, "cost," is a capitalist invention.

  21. If it had happened in any country that had average income above $20,000, I would be less skeptical of it.

    in response to "Radical uprising of the proletariat" is the Rapture for atheists.

    if I offered you free housing, education, healthcare, and food, but said you income would be $20k, would you take it?

  22. (diff anon) Its starting to sound like you think literally any act is justified if done by a leftist nominally in support of revolution.

    in response to Do you think the sentences ranging from a few months to 14 years for January 6 rioters are justified? On one hand, trying to violently stop a major democratic process is a pretty big deal. But on the other hand, it seems kind of hypocritical for us leftists to seek harsher punishments for the rioters if we wish to have our own revolution one day. It implies that whatever sentence they receive could be given to us someday in the future.

    not really, my judgement of an act just takes context into account

  23. seems difficult given that that overwhelmingly, most people aren't socialists or communists

    in response to If your worldview claims that one party does nothing to oppose oppression and the other actively encourages oppression, and given that the public is overwhelmingly either liberal or conservative, I think an answer to the second part of my question (how can this system be changed) is particularly necessary, given that you haven't answered it.

    won't be overwhelming for long

    https://www.newsweek.com/majority-gen-z-americans-hold-negative-views-capitalism-poll-1604334

  24. "Radical uprising of the proletariat" is the Rapture for atheists.

    in response to If your worldview claims that one party does nothing to oppose oppression and the other actively encourages oppression, and given that the public is overwhelmingly either liberal or conservative, I think an answer to the second part of my question (how can this system be changed) is particularly necessary, given that you haven't answered it.

    if the Rapture had happened multiple times in multiple countries I wouldn't be so skeptical of it

  25. Do you think the sentences ranging from a few months to 14 years for January 6 rioters are justified? On one hand, trying to violently stop a major democratic process is a pretty big deal. But on the other hand, it seems kind of hypocritical for us leftists to seek harsher punishments for the rioters if we wish to have our own revolution one day. It implies that whatever sentence they receive could be given to us someday in the future.

    no disrespect, but this question gave me a headache.

    coming at it from one direction: the idea that "persecuting the attempted fascist revolution would be bad because it's saying we should be persecuted if we attempted a leftist revolution" is such a values-neutral governance idea. like... the biggest problem with the fascist coup attempt is that they are fascists. like, we need to be on the same page here: fascism is a bad thing. you say "us leftists" so I'm assuming you're already onboard with "socialism is a good thing," but I would hope you are with me on "fascism bad." that it is right to stop fascists from gaining power, yes? that we oppose fascists not because we oppose the idea of revolution, but because we oppose the idea of the revolution being fascist. the desired outcome is what matters, not whether they broke the rules.

    from the other direction: is the idea that we would overthrow the government, and then the government would put us in jail for overthrowing them? if we overthrow the government, the old government doesn't get a turn. they are out of the game. the King of England didn't get to jail the Americans AFTER the Revolutionary War was over, he didn't have jurisdiction anymore. and if we try to overthrow the government and fail... they are going to arrest us no matter what. like, they're not gonna say, "well, you said to let the January 6th rioters slide, so I guess we won't jail you for treason." that's not how power protects itself.

    I really need you to get out of this mindset that the most important thing is that we have an internally consistent set of rules that ignores all context.

  26. How do you feel when you make a CC answer and it gets a load of replies and threads

    I'm on Twitter at YouTube, "a load of replies and threads" is way, way, way smaller here. and if I ignore it for a day or two it goes away. it's chill.

  27. average commie thought process

    in response to Will phasing out fossil fuels cause an energy crisis?

    bruh, the alternative is climate change, it's literally being unable to grow food on huge swaths of the world, it's hundreds of millions dead. what thought process are you following and tell me how the fuck it's better.

  28. Will phasing out fossil fuels cause an energy crisis?

    I don't care, it's necessary

  29. If your worldview claims that one party does nothing to oppose oppression and the other actively encourages oppression, and given that the public is overwhelmingly either liberal or conservative, I think an answer to the second part of my question (how can this system be changed) is particularly necessary, given that you haven't answered it.

    in response to Why is it that the system favors spineless Democrats and radical Republicans and how can this system be changed then?

    radical uprising of the proletariat

  30. what do you think about the idea that left parties and unions in the first world are really only just aiming to win a slightly fairer distribution of wealth for the global elite, while continuing global imperialist financial structures and profiting from the wealth gained through modern colonialism?

    that is the way capitalism attempts to recuperate labor movements, no guarantee they will be successful at it

  31. how do I get you to change your mind about Stalin

    make an argument

  32. Can a revolution lead to a society that is free of baggage from the previous civilization. I’m skeptical that one can.

    in response to Can a large number of reforms add up to a revolution? For what it’s worth, conservatives have no doubt that it will.

    no, obviously, but those are very broad statements. which baggage exists, and how is it remembered? how does it shape the new society? what do we learn from it? there's a wide array of answers to these questions and many of them are optimistic.

  33. did your perceptions of studio ghibli change when they took down lady eboshi is wrong?

    not really, I know Japanese companies have a more restrictive opinion on copyright

  34. Why is it that the system favors spineless Democrats and radical Republicans and how can this system be changed then?

    in response to Are you saying that there is a conscious conspiracy to get elected and then they choose someone like Manchin or Sinema to block everything? I don’t buy that; if for no other reason than someone would have leaked it. Or are you saying it’s a collective action problem? They might really favor bold or at least more bold action but they are too cowardly to risk angering their donors or republicans? That I can buy, but shouldn’t electing better democrats in primaries be a part of the solution?

    because the system we live in is imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and the conservatives are the party of embracing this and liberals are the party of feeling ambivalent about it. so long as liberals are unwilling to OPPOSE these systems, all they can really offer us is a less draconian version of what conservatives offer. the resistance will always be token and progress will always be slow. there is no anti-hegemony party.

  35. which of Maslowe's Needs do you think governments should provide?

    the premise of a democratic society is that governments only exist because the public decides not to overthrow it. we *allow* the existence of the state, hand over some of our autonomy to obey laws, grant a degree of authority to a centralized body, IF AND ONLY IF they meet our needs. it is literally written into the Declaration of Independence that any government which does not respect this is, definitionally, a tyranny, and must be abolished.

    so the answer is: it should fill as many of the hierarchy of needs as it is capable.

  36. If many Dems in Congress don't actually want to Dems at large to win, what is the best way to vote them out and replace them with Dems who do want to win?

    in response to Enlighten me then either a. Why it's actually advantageous for Democrats to be spineless or b. Why somehow Democrats consistently act in a way not advantageous to them, given that they want to win

    I'm not one for the "vote harder" method. you might want to think more about how to put pressure on politicians between elections.

  37. Are you suggesting that most Democratic Congresspeople prefer it if Democrats as a whole don't hold power? If so, are you also suggesting that Democratic Congresspeople take *actions* that *deliberately* result in Democrats not holding power?

    in response to Enlighten me then either a. Why it's actually advantageous for Democrats to be spineless or b. Why somehow Democrats consistently act in a way not advantageous to them, given that they want to win

    they take actions that result in Democrats not holding power. "deliberate" may or may not factor into it.

  38. Are you saying that there is a conscious conspiracy to get elected and then they choose someone like Manchin or Sinema to block everything? I don’t buy that; if for no other reason than someone would have leaked it.

    Or are you saying it’s a collective action problem? They might really favor bold or at least more bold action but they are too cowardly to risk angering their donors or republicans? That I can buy, but shouldn’t electing better democrats in primaries be a part of the solution?

    in response to Enlighten me then either a. Why it's actually advantageous for Democrats to be spineless or b. Why somehow Democrats consistently act in a way not advantageous to them, given that they want to win

    well, OP compared it to evolution, and evolution isn't a conscious conspiracy *or* collective action. it's a species, through genetic trial and error adapting to a niche til it finds something sustainable. it's the same deal here: Dems are, in hundreds of isolated instances, just doing what makes the most career sense. those who gamble on bold policy, rock the boat, clash with Republicans, get fewer donors, get more aggressive opposition, and have shorter careers. on a long enough timeline, the Party trends towards the most sustainable set of behaviors, through little conscious decision on the part of individual Democrats. and, with the current set of incentives, being spineless in the face of mounting radical conservatism has proved the most sustainable strategy.

    "electing better Democrats" sounds great written down, but what does it MEAN? are better Democrats running in your local elections? are you not voting for them? are they losing? why are they losing? is it because they have smaller campaign budgets? is it because they face more vicious attack ads? is it because their odds of victory are slim and, if they don't drop out of the race, they may prove a spoiler for a more viable Democrat and neither will win, granting the office to a reactionary Republican? these are ALL factors each voter has to contend with. liberal voting practices trend towards milquetoast liberals for the same evolutionary reasons: in the average election, the most plausible victory is a wishy-washy Democrat rather than a bold candidate, if, indeed, a bold candidate is even running. voters are adapting to a niche as well.

  39. Why do I want to be a lesbian so much

    women are awesome

  40. Enlighten me then either a. Why it's actually advantageous for Democrats to be spineless or b. Why somehow Democrats consistently act in a way not advantageous to them, given that they want to win

    in response to Why do you think Democrats are spineless? Wouldn't it be advantageous for them to not be spineless, and wouldn't Democrats in advantageous positions thrive, just like how evolution works?

    but they are winning. many Dems in Congress have held their jobs for decades. they don't need to have convictions or accomplish things, they just need to be an alternative to the Republicans. the more conservative Republicans get, the less progressive Democrats need to be. they can champion bold policy when they're running for office, or when they don't have the votes to get it passed, and that helps them win elections. then, when they're in the majority, they ease off the bold policy, or defer to an unelected parliamentarian, or have one or two blue dogs who break ranks and cost them their majority. always some reason why the good policy can't actually succeed, so you'd better vote Democrat *even harder* next time.

    all they have to be is, by some measure, preferable to an increasingly deranged Right, and dangle the carrot of doing something big for the Left, and they have jobs for life. if they actually ACCOMPLISHED anything of substance for the Left, their entire donor class would turn on them. they'd give voters a taste of real progressivism and then get primaried by actual progressives.

    the Party at large wants to win, but, often enough, it's more advantageous for each individual Congressperson if the Party loses by a narrow margin. they get paid no matter who's in the White House.

  41. Why do you think Democrats are spineless? Wouldn't it be advantageous for them to not be spineless, and wouldn't Democrats in advantageous positions thrive, just like how evolution works?

    in response to i was born in 1995, the first election i ever voted in was 2016. has voting always felt like such a life or death matter? every election i've seen in my adult life has felt like it was a matter of life or death, thought not necessarily for me. things didn't always used to feel this dire, right?

    you have a faulty understanding of both evolution and democrats

  42. lol not all stigmas are oppressive, some are just society deciding it doesn't like you

    in response to i don't know if i find anything more repulsive than polyamory's slow creep into the mainstream. you weirdos pretend like you're an oppressed sexual minority when in reality you're just gross losers.

    I agree that any poly folks claiming they face real systemic oppression are a ways up their own asses. but, since I've never claimed that, why do I disgust you?

  43. don't think about it, write down your first thought, don't take it back:

    if you were a pro wrestler, what would your gimmick be

    wiggling my butt

  44. Are there any good Republicans at all?

    there are people in this country who are good in spite of being Republican; none are good because of it. I don't think there are any good Republican politicians.

  45. i'm floridian so basements are a foreign concept. how does that work for an apartment? is it off limits to every tenant? is it a common space? is it just where the building owners put shit they'll need later?

    in response to Do you have a basement?

    it's usually where the washer and dryer are, and sometimes you can store stuff in it. but it's dank, cobwebby, has no flooring or insulation, and might flood in the rainy season.

  46. i was born in 1995, the first election i ever voted in was 2016. has voting always felt like such a life or death matter? every election i've seen in my adult life has felt like it was a matter of life or death, thought not necessarily for me. things didn't always used to feel this dire, right?

    it's been shitty my whole life, but the degree of direness has amped up with each election. Republicans keep getting more chaotic and Democrats respond by getting more spineless.

  47. Aerith or Tifa?

    Barret

  48. What do you think is the best order to watch Star Wars?

    watching The Last Jedi nine times

  49. Do you think video games being violence focused is in part due to the tech being made by the military

    no. the military was deeply involved in the early video game scene, but, after the crash of 1983, the medium was revived by Nintendo, a toy company. since then it's mostly been run by entertainment and software industries. violent games are popular because violence is popular.

    now, the strain of unambiguous hoo-rah jingoism in a lot of shooters is absolutely thanks to military contracts.

  51. If we watch new movies or tv shows during the WGA strike, are we crossing the picket line?

    don't ask me, ask the WGA

  52. How do you use the exit music in your videos without getting copyright flagged?

    sometimes I do!

  54. Is chiropractic a pseudoscience?

    more of an art

  55. ????

    !!!!

  56. i don't know if i find anything more repulsive than polyamory's slow creep into the mainstream. you weirdos pretend like you're an oppressed sexual minority when in reality you're just gross losers.

    you're annoyed that we act like we're stigmatized but also think we should be more stigmatized?

  57. Think Legalize and Decriminalize are good terms for using? Like, think it's reasonably easy to keep people from mixing up the meanings too much?

    in response to Why decriminalization specifically? I am not that familiar with the community, but I know decriminalization vs. legalization is a highly controversial issue within the community.

    I mean, the difference was explained to me once and I understood it. I don't think I'm some kinda genius.

  58. When do you think the next Alt-Right Playbook will be ready?

  59. What do you think about the idea that "men are from Mars, women are from Venus"?

    men and women are both from vaginas

  60. Do you feel patriotic about your country?

    nope

  61. Life On Mars?

    great song

  62. I saw you quote Samuel R. Delaney in a video and that makes me wonder, have you ever read his possibly most famous work (or infamous, depending on who you ask) Dhalgren?

    it was the first one I read!

  63. Do you have a basement?

    there is a basement in my apartment building, if that's what you're asking

    I'm a millennial. I rent.

  64. Why decriminalization specifically? I am not that familiar with the community, but I know decriminalization vs. legalization is a highly controversial issue within the community.

    in response to On a related note: Do you support legalized and well-regulated sex work?

    most of the sex workers I've heard speak on the subject have insisted on decrim. they don't want the law telling them when and where they can do their business, they just want to do it and know the law will keep them safe.

  65. On a related note: Do you support legalized and well-regulated sex work?

    in response to It's interesting that you would compare it to systemic issues like homelessness and hunger. The resentment comes from the same place that tells the homeless to just *get a job*, like its so easy, and not based on any number of factors outside of your control. The feeling of powerlessness bucking against the systemic issues at the root of the problem (again poverty, disability, mental illness) that make it next to impossible to even find someone you "click" with. I can tell myself that I'm valid and valuable all I want, it won't help me feel less lonely. And I can't afford therapy. Sure, maybe the real systemic issue are the incels and wannabe serial killers poisoning the well, but where does that leave the millions of guys who *aren't that* but are still looked at with undeserved suspicion? THATS where the resentment comes from. The feeling that if you're unhappy being alone then you're one of *those* assholes and you dont deserve the affection you're starving for until you "work on yourself", whatever that means. So what's the solution? Other than millions of men resigning themselves to being alone forever?

    I support the *decriminalization* of sex work and laws designed to protect citizens from exploitation and coercion within that field

  66. It's interesting that you would compare it to systemic issues like homelessness and hunger. The resentment comes from the same place that tells the homeless to just *get a job*, like its so easy, and not based on any number of factors outside of your control. The feeling of powerlessness bucking against the systemic issues at the root of the problem (again poverty, disability, mental illness) that make it next to impossible to even find someone you "click" with. I can tell myself that I'm valid and valuable all I want, it won't help me feel less lonely. And I can't afford therapy.

    Sure, maybe the real systemic issue are the incels and wannabe serial killers poisoning the well, but where does that leave the millions of guys who *aren't that* but are still looked at with undeserved suspicion? THATS where the resentment comes from. The feeling that if you're unhappy being alone then you're one of *those* assholes and you dont deserve the affection you're starving for until you "work on yourself", whatever that means. So what's the solution? Other than millions of men resigning themselves to being alone forever?

    in response to (diff anon) The problem is its entirely possible to see women as full human beings and still resent the lack of affection. Because the alternative means having to constantly remind yourself that, on some level, you *deserve* to be alone until you hit some arbitrary level of self-improvement. Which may be ultimately impossible due to any number of factors outside of your control (poverty, disability, mental illness, etc.)

    Okay, maybe we're getting somewhere. You resent being alone. That's understandable.

    Where is that resentment pointed? Men? Women? Systems?

  67. (third anon) I can't find it now, but I remember seeing a tumblr post by a trans man talking about the marked difference in how women treated him once he started transitioning, and how it helped him wrap his head around the loneliness inherent in conventional masculinity.

    And just to be clear, he does acknowledge the obvious truth that women have A Very Good Reason for doing this. But I'd be lying if I said it didn't make it difficult.

    in response to (diff anon) The problem is its entirely possible to see women as full human beings and still resent the lack of affection. Because the alternative means having to constantly remind yourself that, on some level, you *deserve* to be alone until you hit some arbitrary level of self-improvement. Which may be ultimately impossible due to any number of factors outside of your control (poverty, disability, mental illness, etc.)

    I remember that post. Contrapoints has talked about this phenomenon as well. but, again, why *resent* them for it? I mean, if you're gonna resent anyone, resent the fucking dudes sending dick pics without asking. resent the stalkers and rapists and murderers. they're poisoning the well for everyone, leaving men *and women* lonely when they shouldn't have to be.

    like, you and the women you're trying to date have a common enemy here.

  68. Can a large number of reforms add up to a revolution? For what it’s worth, conservatives have no doubt that it will.

    in response to Revolution or Reform?

    large numbers of reforms have made countries swing pretty hard to the Left, but I haven't found any that reformed their way into socialism. Canada's Quiet Revolution, northern Europe's "grand compromise," even (to an extent) the US' New Deal, all led to heavy socialization. but they were, in essence, capitalism making concessions to the Left in exchange for its continued existence. and, as time passes, all three have seen capitalism chip away at that socialization.

  69. Is mercantilism a form of capitalism? A form of proto-capitalism? Or something else entirely?

    else entirely

  70. Iunno, "work or die" seems pretty slaveryish to me, fam.

    in response to Is work wage slavery?

    spend a couple years as chattel and revisit this question

  71. That's cool. Any other albums you would recommend in the genre?

    in response to You listened to that album Mezzanine by Massive Attack

    trip-hop? sure!

    Portishead - Dummy
    Tricky - Maxinquaye
    Lamb - Lamb
    Laika - Silver Apples of the Moon
    Dutch - A Bright Cold Day
    Sevdaliza - Ison

  72. (diff anon) The problem is its entirely possible to see women as full human beings and still resent the lack of affection. Because the alternative means having to constantly remind yourself that, on some level, you *deserve* to be alone until you hit some arbitrary level of self-improvement. Which may be ultimately impossible due to any number of factors outside of your control (poverty, disability, mental illness, etc.)

    in response to I'm certain that you blocked me from Curiouscat because of the post I made a week ago about ensuring every man can get a girlfriend being an objectively good thing. I won't ask you to unblock me, though that would be nice. Rather, I just want to know how I can go about deprogramming myself from those beliefs that I know are pretty toxic. Any advice, please?

    pretty sure you can resent the lack of affection without thinking the government should assign you a sexual/romantic partner. the latter thing is the dehumanizing bit.

    but also, like: why resentment? sadness I understand. loneliness. but why resentment? and why would the only interpretation of being alone be that you deserve it? everyone deserves to be homed, and yet we have homelessness. everyone deserves to be fed, and yet people starve. you can deserve love and still not, at this moment, have it. and that sucks, and, if that's what you're going through, you have my sympathies. but it's not something women are DOING to you. you just haven't found the one you click with.

    if you're in a bitter, resentful place, yeah, you may not be an ideal partner right now. that doesn't mean you don't deserve a relationship, but it might mean you're not ready for one. but you have to understand: you are valid, and you are valuable, irrespective of whether you're in a relationship. if you don't feel that way, snagging a woman isn't going to fix it. and blaming women for not fixing it isn't going to speed up the process.

  73. Is gun control really worth disarming the proletariat?

    until the proletariat can get its hands on tanks, missiles, and drones, guns won't be used for the revolution. they will only be used for killing our allies.

  74. At the same time, you're advocating for lighter terminology just like the ruling class would want you to

    in response to Is work wage slavery?

    in my experience, the ruling class loves to compare white experiences to slavery

  75. I’ll often skip a few days and not take my adhd medication, and I shit you not, when I finally do it’s like my brain goes “whoosh” and gets hyper focused!

    I can't skip more than one day at a time, the withdrawal symptoms usually start at the end of the second day

Anon commented:
Ian replied: