CuriousCat Archive Page 63 of 202

  1. What is your weakest art opinion? If they are somehow different, what is your weakest art opinion that is still very Art Degree

    in response to You got any Strong Opinions regarding art?

    Monet is fine

  2. Left buttcheek or Right buttcheek

    the rare instance where centrism is defensible

  3. All this talk about value and capitalism really puts into perspective how cheated I got in high school economics class; it was just goddamn supply and demand curves over and over again! The course was piss easy for me, but I've become acutely aware of how I learned basically nothing about fundamental economics principles.

    If you were asked by a high school economics teacher what concepts you think they should talk about with their students, how would you respond?

    I dunno, the issue here is that economics and history professors are tasked with teaching their subjects "without political bias," which typically means shaving off a lot of substance. like, you have to describe capitalism without condemning it; you have to discuss the US's history of imperialism without stating whether it's good or bad. there's a reason why those tend to be everyone's most hated classes, and why, as I learn history now on my own terms, I cover ground I ostensibly learned in high school but forgot as soon as I passed a test that I now find utterly fascinating.

    I'm not sure an econ teacher *can* teach it well under the current restrictions.

  4. Why is capitalism seen as the problem instead of corporatism?

    you imply there's a version of capitalism that doesn't trend towards corporatism

  5. Who, in your approximation, was the least bad president?

    William Henry Harrison didn't do much wrong

  7. Doesn't this argument rely on the ingredients and the bread having some set universal value, which just isn't the case? A customer might be willing to buy a loaf of bread for $1 because they can't eat the dollar but they can eat the bread. But a baker wouldn't be willing to buy a loaf of bread for $1 because they already have 100 loaves, and getting a 101st loaf doesn't have any utility. So even though a loaf of bread is "worth 1$", both the baker and the customer are better off after the exchange, and no baker would be happier to keep the 100 loaves instead of the $100. Same goes for the ingredient seller. They are better off swapping 10kg of flour for $10 than they would be keeping the 10kg of flour they can't make use of.

    in response to If all the profit is shared among all the workers, is it still exploitative?

    this line of thinking conflates "value" with "price," which is how capitalism typically frames things. but, of course, bread HAS VALUE beyond just its asking price. if the bread is exceptionally good but only costs a couple dollars, then you know you're getting a deal; if the bread costs $6 a loaf and you find out it's made with corn syrup instead of sugar, you know you're getting cheated. you have a sense of "value" and a desire for it to be reflected in the price.

    and this isn't even engaging with the fact that, of course, bread has its intrinsic value of *feeding people*. that bread that is given to you by a loved one is still valuable even if it has no cost. that, while such value is hard to quantify, it nevertheless *exists*, and that money's function is, ostensibly, to reflect - rather than dictate - the value goods and services have.

    the thing to understand about capitalism - or, at least, capitalism since the marginal revolution - is that the market does not acknowledge intrinsic value at all. there is ONLY supply and demand. if I have bread and you need bread, then it is valuable to you and therefore I can charge a lot for it, *even if* it was cheap and trivially easy for me to make. if there isn't a lot of bread available, it's value goes up; if there are a lot of workers available, wages go down. it's the same bread, the same labor, but their "value" is always a coefficient of how much they are wanted and how hard they are to get.

    one of the central facets of capitalism is the way it divorces goods and services from their real world value, the point where it's hard for people thinking in a capitalist context to conceive of things as having a "value" other than price. which is how things like sheltering the unhoused, providing education, addressing the climate crisis, ending wars, or building subway systems are so often ignored; they are incredibly valuable things to do, critically important in some cases, but their value doesn't translate into *profit*. they just don't make money under capitalism.

    which inevitably raises the question: if capitalism makes it harder to do some of the most vitally important work, what the fuck is capitalism FOR?

  8. How so?

    in response to I'm not an anarchist. I'm a social democrat, if anything. I just believe that producing a fully un-corrupt (and incorruptible) government is effectively impossible. Because any theoretical system of government will start to deteriorate into kleptocracy once you plug actual fallible human beings into it. And so, the only way to maintain an altruistic society is through constant vigilance, usually taking the form of strong government oversight. Market regulation, socialized healthcare, gun control, social safety nets and the like. Which is why I believe social democracy is truly the best we can do. But I digress. This thread started with you responding to the question if socialism is worth pursuing by alluding to the French Revolution. I was merely pointing out the ways that such revolutions have not necessarily changed things for the better.

    "all forms of government are equally oppressive, therefore the life I am leading is as good as it gets" seems like a rationalization to keeping the status quo.

  9. question - if I were religious, why wouldn't I want the highest number of people doing what I believe is the objectively, ethically, and spiritually the right thing? why aren't most religions evangelical?

    in response to Um saving souls?

    this presumes that your religion claims to be the only path to rightness, which is only true of a few denominations of a few religions

  10. How is The Expanse, btw? Thinking about starting it.

    the first three seasons are killer. 3-6 have much to recommend them but they get a little muddled at times.

  11. Does your perspective change with polyamory? Is there such a thing in most of your relationships? Feel free to ignore if too personal

    in response to How do you get over getting cheated on?

    within polyamory, there is sex with other people that is explicitly NOT cheating, and there's sex with other people that explicitly IS cheating

    and then there's sometimes a grey area

  12. After all has happened and the trial is now complete, What is your position now in the Depp v. Heard Fiasco?

    I stand with Amber

  14. How do you get over a breakup? Asking for a friend

    have you tried marathoning The Expanse?

  15. You got any Strong Opinions regarding art?

    of course, I have an art degree!

  17. Another answer I have seen to this question is "if the mine is so dangerous that nobody will willingly go down the right thing to do is structure our society in a way that does not need the minerals from said mine"

    in response to Would there be people who would willingly choose to work a job as dangerous as mining for all their labor hours? Wouldn't it be better to distribute that work evenly somehow, so no one ends up doing it for longer than is tolerable?

    I think an important question is "if a job is so dangerous that the only way to get someone to do it is if they will literally starve otherwise, why are we defending the system that forces them into it?"

  18. I'm not an anarchist. I'm a social democrat, if anything. I just believe that producing a fully un-corrupt (and incorruptible) government is effectively impossible. Because any theoretical system of government will start to deteriorate into kleptocracy once you plug actual fallible human beings into it. And so, the only way to maintain an altruistic society is through constant vigilance, usually taking the form of strong government oversight. Market regulation, socialized healthcare, gun control, social safety nets and the like. Which is why I believe social democracy is truly the best we can do.

    But I digress. This thread started with you responding to the question if socialism is worth pursuing by alluding to the French Revolution. I was merely pointing out the ways that such revolutions have not necessarily changed things for the better.

    in response to We absolutely need to progress further. But to do so first we must understand that all those in power can be reliably counted on to do is whatever it takes to stay in power. Thus, democracy is no more sustainable than dictatorship, because the *only* real sustainable form of government is Kleptocracy. So the solution is not to gesture at revolution, but to be similarly willing to do whatever it takes to change things for the better. Which will more likely take the form of what some on the left would consider playing dirty politics than any sort of ground-up movement.

    I think that is deeply motivated reasoning.

  19. How long should I watch to get a solid impression? I watched the first four episodes yesterday and am on the fence about continuing.

    in response to Leaving the whole Joss Whedon thing aside for now, would you recommend Buffy as a show?

    season one is rough. watch one of the better, self-contained episodes from a later season, like Restless or The Zeppo, and see if you like where it's headed. if so, pick season one back up now that there's light at the end of your tunnel.

  21. That's all true, but what I was getting at was that if a person wants a deep emotional connection with someone else but can't find anyone who'll date or sleep with them, that person should maybe try looking for that connection in contexts that are neither romantic nor sexual.

    in response to (different anon) Not to put too fine a point on this, but sex seems to me like a rather poor metonym for emotional connection. It's my understanding that people can and do have sex without forming an emotional bond all the time.

    agreed!

  22. If all the profit is shared among all the workers, is it still exploitative?

    in response to I get where you're coming from but I think you're neglecting a couple things 1) in this scenario, the baker did not create $4 of value; they created $4 minus the value of all the other inputs - ingredients, fuel/electricity, building maintenance, etc 2) the profits kept by the boss are a) the boss's wages for their work managing the bakery, and probably also b) interest on their financial investment in the bakery, without which it would not exist and no bakers would get paid at all It may well be true that the boss is getting paid more than the baker in proportion to the amount of time they spend working, and of course employment contracts can be exploitative, but the profit is still wages and interest. if the boss doesn't get to keep *any* profits then uh they have no wages for their management work and that theoretical situation would be exploitative of the boss. (Obviously that is purely a theoretical situation; but it is a useful counterexample)

    the argument would go, then, that the workers are not being exploited, but they can still only make profit by buying ingredients for less than their worth, or selling bread for more than it's worth. if no one was getting cheated, there would be
    no profit.

  23. yeah but i feel like actually using a wing cap would just shatter every single cell in your neck when you fly

    in response to What video game world would you want to live in?

    worth it

  24. they didn’t switch it because it sounds ludicrous, they switched because that’s the usual usage of the term preaching to the choir if you aren’t being hyper literal about it

    in response to the idea that "more people can result in a greater impact, which itself can result in the achievement of goals for a group" doesn't seem particularly market-economics based

    yes but I am using the example of an actual church to talk about the ways that "preaching to the choir" is both good an necessary and using that as an analogy for the many parts of our lives that aren't about "expanding" but strengthening and enriching what already exists

  26. i mean i think we can apply “it would be nice to grow as a movement” thinking to the left

    in response to well, if the church wants to have an effect on anything, the best way it can do that is with more members So unless that church is happy with a small and dwindling group with little to no effect on the world around it, it should stop preaching only to the choir

    I think the Left should have some sort of specific thing it's trying to accomplish and then ask whether growth is necessary to achieve it, and what kind of growth, and by what means, rather than treating "growth" like some sort of universal good

  27. It’s market economics if you want infinite members in the church, but if you need a critical mass of supporters to accomplish anything, and you don’t have that critical mass, how can you avoid converting people?

    in response to well, if the church wants to have an effect on anything, the best way it can do that is with more members So unless that church is happy with a small and dwindling group with little to no effect on the world around it, it should stop preaching only to the choir

    the fuck is the church down the street trying to "accomplish"?

  28. Leaving the whole Joss Whedon thing aside for now, would you recommend Buffy as a show?

    many parts of it haven't aged well, but Buffy is a great show

  29. I get where you're coming from but I think you're neglecting a couple things

    1) in this scenario, the baker did not create $4 of value; they created $4 minus the value of all the other inputs - ingredients, fuel/electricity, building maintenance, etc
    2) the profits kept by the boss are a) the boss's wages for their work managing the bakery, and probably also b) interest on their financial investment in the bakery, without which it would not exist and no bakers would get paid at all

    It may well be true that the boss is getting paid more than the baker in proportion to the amount of time they spend working, and of course employment contracts can be exploitative, but the profit is still wages and interest.

    if the boss doesn't get to keep *any* profits then uh they have no wages for their management work and that theoretical situation would be exploitative of the boss. (Obviously that is purely a theoretical situation; but it is a useful counterexample)

    in response to What precisely do you mean by "value extraction"?

    1) yes, but all of those are also expenses. profit is what's left over after expenses.
    2) if the boss takes a salary, then that's an expense. they still keep any money left over after expenses, and the business is built to turn a profit. you say "without which it would not exist and no bakers would get paid at all," but leave out "...under capitalism." we live in a system where business does not get done unless there is profit, and profit is exploitation. hence why I'm saying capitalism is inherently exploitative.

    under capitalism, the boss justifies keeping the profits because they are taking on "risk;" if the business turns a profit the boss gets to keep it, BUT, if the business LOSES money, the boss eats the loss. under this model, "risk" is considered a form of labor that should be compensated. often all a boss DOES is take risk; the boss doesn't bake, doesn't work the desk, doesn't clean the bathrooms, pays someone to do the accounting, etc. if the boss goes on vacation for two weeks, the business runs just fine without them. they are not necessary for the production of goods and services. their role is primarily to front the money, reap any rewards, eat any losses, and perform managerial tasks that primarily exist because they are a capitalist boss. in a non-capitalist system, managing bank loans and investments and rents and trying to find cheaper ingredients to increase the profit margins and running ad campaigns to compete with the bakery down the street, all that would disappear. and that's mostly what the boss busies themself with.

    and, of course, if the business doesn't turn a profit, the boss sees no return on their investment. often that means the bakery closes. which, of course, means all the workers are out of a job, so it's not like they take no risk! but their risk isn't compensated, even though wage workers are probably coming from a more precarious financial position than people who open businesses.

  30. We absolutely need to progress further. But to do so first we must understand that all those in power can be reliably counted on to do is whatever it takes to stay in power. Thus, democracy is no more sustainable than dictatorship, because the *only* real sustainable form of government is Kleptocracy. So the solution is not to gesture at revolution, but to be similarly willing to do whatever it takes to change things for the better. Which will more likely take the form of what some on the left would consider playing dirty politics than any sort of ground-up movement.

    in response to I believe it's a distinction without a difference if the governed are still similarly oppressed by those in power.

    if the only stable form of government is kleptocracy, then are you an anarchist? I'm just trying to figure your position here. can you also elaborate on how anything other than a ground-up movement is going to produce a non-corrupt government?

  31. “Status and conquest” can you please elaborate what that means?

    in response to For most lonely men it's not about sex, but about the validation that comes with being in a relationship and having someone who deeply cares about you and vice versa. Sex is just a simple metonym for that.

    "status" meaning that having sex raises your clout within your male friend group, "conquest" meaning that getting a woman to have sex with you is framed as an act of dominance over females.

  32. Were you aware that Notch has seen your This is Phil Fish video, and that it was what inspired him to sell Minecraft?

    oh yes, Notch is the reason that video went viral, and his blog post made it go viral a second time (90k views was "viral" in those days)

  33. (different anon) Not to put too fine a point on this, but sex seems to me like a rather poor metonym for emotional connection. It's my understanding that people can and do have sex without forming an emotional bond all the time.

    in response to For most lonely men it's not about sex, but about the validation that comes with being in a relationship and having someone who deeply cares about you and vice versa. Sex is just a simple metonym for that.

    indeed, but "not forming a bond" can mean many things. the way a lot of male culture sees it, that means sex with someone who is disposable to you outside of providing you some physical satisfaction. you have that, and you have love & marriage. there's a lot outside that framework: sex that is caring and respectful and fun but not romantic; sexual friendships; intense connections that are nonetheless brief; flings where both parties know it isn't going to become a relationship; etc. but all of that requires a degree of mutual respect and emotional maturity that male culture doesn't really equip us for. so the more toxic masculinity gets, the more it narrows to just those first two things.

  34. What's your limit for how many books you read at once?

    in a SENSE I am reading three books right now, which is about the max it gets to, but really it means I am reading two books and will get back to the one I paused when I finish one of them.

  36. Would there be people who would willingly choose to work a job as dangerous as mining for all their labor hours? Wouldn't it be better to distribute that work evenly somehow, so no one ends up doing it for longer than is tolerable?

    in response to How could resources that need to be mined be extracted under a socialist economy? Would everyone be trained to use tools or do other necessary activities? Could it become automated with machinery and just have to be checked on every now and then, using a system like Chile's Project Cybersyn? I know you probably don't have all the answers, but I'd like to hear if you have any ideas on how these problems could be handled hypothetically in the future.

    I like the idea of saying "here's the work that needs doing, who wants to do it?" and finding out, and then divvying up whatever doesn't get covered willingly as distributed community service. but it's not like I've read a lot of research and theory to find out how plausible that is!

  37. What video game world would you want to live in?

    I just want to live in a world with wing caps, is that so much to ask?!

  38. Why is that? Do incels just see themselves as unable to love or be loved for reasons I can't comprehend? Would that also extend to non-romantic forms of love?

    in response to For most lonely men it's not about sex, but about the validation that comes with being in a relationship and having someone who deeply cares about you and vice versa. Sex is just a simple metonym for that.

    I don't have a comprehensive answer to this. I think some of it is male socialization that sees sentimentality as weakness. and I think some of it is the consequence of being heterosexual but hating women. you can't love without being vulnerable and people who are used to being punished for showing vulnerability often see that as a trap.

  39. But where did the Value come from?

    in response to What precisely do you mean by "value extraction"?

    the capitalist notion of "value" is WAAAAAY too squidgy and complex for Curious Cat

  41. For most lonely men it's not about sex, but about the validation that comes with being in a relationship and having someone who deeply cares about you and vice versa. Sex is just a simple metonym for that.

    in response to Would having some form of government-funded welfare program to redistribute sex to lonely men reduce male violence and mass shootings? Not implying that we necessarily should, just wondering if it would work.

    for most incels it is not about that at all, and they find the idea of loving and being loved repulsive. it's about status and conquest.

  42. in terms of what is wrong with it though he also talkers about the conditions of work needing to be kept below the standard they could be at, the fact that capitalism requires endless growth to keep this relationship stable, and that large and growing amounts of labour and resources are wasted to maintain growth, he talks about how the fact that investing in new technology makes labour competitive but that that increasing capital cost for a firm naturally decreases profit over time, the only way to fix that is to pay people less, which decreases demand for the thing you make, this "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" is the primary tension, costs/profit for capital can only increase, and only decrease when more of the globe (and when you run out, more of people lives) is managed under 'market logic'

    in response to What was so wrong with capitalism in the first place that made Karl Marx establish his entire life's work towards wishing to replace it?

    yeah!

  43. I believe it's a distinction without a difference if the governed are still similarly oppressed by those in power.

    in response to Again, just because a country doesn't *call* itself an absolute monarchy doesn't mean it *isn't" one. So I'd call into question your "only six absolute monarchies" number. If you include recognized modern dictatorships, the real number is at least twice that. Even more if you count places run by despots like Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro. And frankly just because a country *calls* itself a democracy doesn't mean that it *is* one. I'd argue that true democracy has never actually *existed*, even going back to Athens where it was *invented*. What I'm trying to get you to see is that while the while the combined influence of the French and American Revolutions may have "technically" changed the dominant form of government in the world, that hasn't necessarily resulted in a better world for the governed. The more things change, the more they stay the same. So another revolution may not be what we need.

    seems like you're flattening a lot to make that comparison, but, okay. are you arguing that we need to progress further because we still haven't escaped the oppression of serfdom, or are you arguing we shouldn't bother trying to replace systems because nothing really changes?

  44. (different anon again) Saying the reason those men can't get laid is that they hate women is sort of a chicken vs egg situation. Could they not get laid because they hate women, or do they hate women because they could not get laid? Which came first?

    in response to (different anon) The better idea would be publicly funded counseling sessions to help men abandon the mindset stating that manhood is synonymous with being sexually active.

    there's a phase of human development before a male is sexually active where they are not insulated from misogyny called "childhood"

  45. the idea that "more people can result in a greater impact, which itself can result in the achievement of goals for a group" doesn't seem particularly market-economics based

    in response to well, if the church wants to have an effect on anything, the best way it can do that is with more members So unless that church is happy with a small and dwindling group with little to no effect on the world around it, it should stop preaching only to the choir

    the assumption that everything must have some kind of utilitarian goal and should be streamlined and maximized towards that end is extremely capitalist-brained

    notice how you had to switch to saying "group" and "impact" because the moment you try to apply this logic to your neighborhood church it sounds fucking ludicrous

  46. The link you provided claims that precisely zero people have died of deprivation in China, and also seems to suggest that China is not capitalist.

    in response to [citation needed]

    whether or not China is truly communist is an open question, but China is not capitalist

  47. What precisely do you mean by "value extraction"?

    in response to are you suggesting that all rich people are evil and/or that all acquisition of wealth must be done through immoral means? if the latter is included, I'll make sure to tell that to the Girl Scouts

    that's a whole thing that would be hard to encompass within Curious Cat's character limit, but the short version:

    you work in a bakery. you bake loaves of bread. your boss sells the loaves in exchange for money. your boss pays the expenses out of that money - the ingredients, the rent, the electricity, etc. your wages are one of those expenses. whatever is left over is profit, and your boss keeps the profit.

    now, the question is: where did that profit come from?

    if you baked a loaf of bread that sold for $4, then your time spent making that bread was worth $4. that is the value you generated. so the only way you could get paid and there's still money left over is if you were paid less than you are worth, or the bread was sold for more than it was worth.

    the only way profit can exist is by, somewhere along the way, something gets sold for more or someone gets paid for less. if everything is fair, then expenses and labor are compensated and there is nothing left over. to make a profit, somewhere value has to be extracted.

    capitalism is built on profit. all profit is value extraction. capitalism is fundamentally about exploiting people.

  48. (different anon) The better idea would be publicly funded counseling sessions to help men abandon the mindset stating that manhood is synonymous with being sexually active.

    in response to Would having some form of government-funded welfare program to redistribute sex to lonely men reduce male violence and mass shootings? Not implying that we necessarily should, just wondering if it would work.

    or just, like, teaching them that the reason they don't get laid is they hate women

  50. What was so wrong with capitalism in the first place that made Karl Marx establish his entire life's work towards wishing to replace it?

    if you wade into theory you'll hear the term "Marxist dialectic." this was the idea that society was always evolving, and the present is a reaction to the past. each economic or societal system comes into existence to address something about the previous system. Marx believed capitalism came into existence to solve the tensions of feudalism. once we have capitalism, we live in it a while and come to understand the tensions there, and we prepare for the next step. Marx believed communism was the thing that would solve the inherent tensions of capitalism. he also believed that, once capitalism was replaced, we would inevitably find the tensions in communism and would invent the next model.

    Marx didn't believe communism was the end of history, he believed society is an ongoing conversation where each system answers a question but inevitably poses new ones. Marx saw much wrong with capitalism, but he didn't think capitalism was UNIQUELY bad. but he wanted to move to the next thing.

  51. At what age should a person be allowed to transition?

    no one should be in a position to "disallow" transition

  52. well, if the church wants to have an effect on anything, the best way it can do that is with more members

    So unless that church is happy with a small and dwindling group with little to no effect on the world around it, it should stop preaching only to the choir

    in response to I think the metaphor here is if you ONLY preach to the choir, your church is gonna stay small forever, and slowly dwindle into obscurity, which we as a movement want to avoid.

    stop trying to apply market economics to everything

  53. Why not try to defeat AND convert them?

    in response to Nice dodge, Neo.

    I mean, I'm in favor of both, but I don't have to personally embody the entire movement, you know? there are lots of people doing the conversion, and some of my work is aimed at giving those people a better understanding of the folks they're trying to convert. I am not in opposition to that effort.

    but I am doing a different thing. there is room for many methods.

  54. are you suggesting that all rich people are evil and/or that all acquisition of wealth must be done through immoral means?

    if the latter is included, I'll make sure to tell that to the Girl Scouts

    in response to Is money the root of all evil?

    I am an anticapitalist. I am suggesting all profit is value extraction, which is fundamentally immoral. this is not a binary: there are people who try to do as little harm as possible within this system, and who accomplish good things in spite of it. I'm not interested in painting everyone with the same brush. but making money involves exploitation, and the more money you make the more harm you cause. keeping your hands relatively clean would prevent you from acquiring any serious wealth.

  55. Again, just because a country doesn't *call* itself an absolute monarchy doesn't mean it *isn't" one. So I'd call into question your "only six absolute monarchies" number. If you include recognized modern dictatorships, the real number is at least twice that. Even more if you count places run by despots like Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro. And frankly just because a country *calls* itself a democracy doesn't mean that it *is* one. I'd argue that true democracy has never actually *existed*, even going back to Athens where it was *invented*.

    What I'm trying to get you to see is that while the while the combined influence of the French and American Revolutions may have "technically" changed the dominant form of government in the world, that hasn't necessarily resulted in a better world for the governed. The more things change, the more they stay the same. So another revolution may not be what we need.

    in response to Did you just "Yeah, but" the Reign of Terror and over half a century of political upheaval because it resulted in *technically* fewer monarchies? Because I have to tell you, modern authoritatian dictatorships (Putin's Russia springs to mind) aren't *better* just because they no longer use that word. And just because a country techically has some kind of parliamentary system and a heavily skewed "vote" for its leader every few years doesnt make it a democracy.

    do you believe the current system is indistinguishable from pre-Revolution monarchy?

  56. What do you do when you want to finish a game you haven't played in a long time, and you're not familiar with where you left off and don't know how to continue it?

    depends on the game. if it's something story-based I might start over. if it's too long, I might load an older save and replay a bit. if it's something skill-based I might pick up where I left off, see if it's too hard, and replay a few older levels to refresh my skills if so.

  57. How often do you work out?

    I train twice a week and just got my bike fixed up so I can ride between sessions

  58. Would having some form of government-funded welfare program to redistribute sex to lonely men reduce male violence and mass shootings? Not implying that we necessarily should, just wondering if it would work.

    lonely men already have access to sex work, if it were about sex they could get sex. the problem is they want sex with specific people (or at least specific types) and they expect to be desired by those people.

  59. Why is it that Americans use the word "liberal" to mean promoting civil rights and social justice, instead of free markets and individualism?

    because that's what the word means nowadays

  60. How could resources that need to be mined be extracted under a socialist economy? Would everyone be trained to use tools or do other necessary activities? Could it become automated with machinery and just have to be checked on every now and then, using a system like Chile's Project Cybersyn? I know you probably don't have all the answers, but I'd like to hear if you have any ideas on how these problems could be handled hypothetically in the future.

    there are many models of socialism where people still have specialized jobs. "miner" can still exist as a profession. can you elaborate on what your question is?

  62. Most white men in therapy could get the same benefit by going to confession

    those are different tools! both have their value but they are not identical.

  63. Were you aware that Netflix has released a Sandman TV show?

    yeah, been watching it now and then. I like some of the decisions they've made and the visuals are often lovely, but they're fleshing out the first two volumes SO MUCH and, while nothing they're adding is making it worse, I'm not sure it's making any of it better, either. and given the first two volumes are the least interesting in the saga, I question the decision to not just start later in the narrative, or do a story set in that universe not based on a specific comic. I'm also torn on Gwendoline Christie as Lucifer; in many ways it's an inspired choice and she embodies the LOOK so well, but she doesn't capture any of Lucifer's IMPISHNESS from the comics. dunno whether that's an acting or directorial decision.

  64. "I think it's also worth noting how many conservative pundits have built their careers on holding debates, like Ben Shapiro."

    Damn, maybe people on the left should've actually learned how to debate so he wouldn't have built a media empire off of making lefties look bad.

    seems like you're suggesting we keep doing the thing that made him successful and expecting it to have a different result

  65. favorite Modest Mouse

    in response to favorite Arctic Monkey

    Despereaux

  66. How many US presidents can you name?

    "that asshole" refers to all 46

  67. Is money the root of all evil?

    evil is the root of all money

  68. At what point do you separate art from the artist? In terms of political views, religious beliefs, etc?

    the art and the artist are never fully joined nor fully separable

  69. So can we defeat Fascism by dissolving and banning Leftism?

    in response to This is a fascinating perspective but I'm a bit perplexed by the implications of the last paragraph. Should socialists be more staunchly standing against those bigotries, then? Is a rise in fascist sympathy just a necessary hurdle to overcome in the growing pains of socialism?

    actually, the best defense against fascism is letting the leftists win instead of trying to make a compromise with liberals. Mussolini, for instance, appropriated a lot of the language of the socialists, but pretty much across the board failed to recruit them. his fascist movement was built on jaded military vets, middle-class folks struggling during the post-war economic crises, and isolated workers. the more stitched into their local union or socialist group a person was, the harder it was for him to recruit, *even though he was using their rhetoric*. it's similar to how abusers can't control someone who has many healthy relationships outside of the abusive one. the places where fascism took root are the places where socialist movements were stymied by liberals or suppressed by the state. nascent fascist movements in, for instance, France were prevented when socialist movements took power and anticipated the threat, whereas liberal governments tended to tolerate or even ally with fascist movements because they were preferable to the leftists.

    from Paxton: "The relative scarcity of working-class fascists was not due to some proletarian immunity to appeals to nationalism and ethnic cleansing. It is better explained by 'immunization' and 'confessionalism': those already deeply engaged, from generation to generation, in the rich subculture of socialism, with its clubs, newspapers, unions, and rallies, were simply not available for another loyalty. Workers were more available for fascism if they stood outside the community of socialists. [...] The unemployed, too, had been separated from organized socialism (which, under the harsh and divisive conditions of economic depression, appeared to value employed workers more than the unemployed). The unemployed were more likely to join the communists than the fascists, however, unless they were first-time voters or from the middle class. A similar rootedness in the parish community probably explains the smaller proportion of Catholics than Protestants among the Nazi electorate."

  70. If it's ok to punch Nazis because they killed 6 million people can I punch commies because they killed 100 million people?

    can punch capitalists because they killed several billion?

  71. What’s the biggest lie your generation was told?

    prescriptivist grammar!

  72. Have you read "The End of Policing" by Alex Vitale? If so, what are your thoughts?

    I own a PDF but haven't dug into it yet.

  73. I think the metaphor here is if you ONLY preach to the choir, your church is gonna stay small forever, and slowly dwindle into obscurity, which we as a movement want to avoid.

    in response to How can you possibly change the world when the only thing you do is preach to your choir?

    again, this assumes the goal of a church is to grow, rather than to serve an important daily function in the lives of its congregation

  75. You must be viewing it on mobile then. It’s nowhere near as blurry on my computer.

    in response to Try this link: https://i.imgur.com/Zrd2cr9.jpg

    oh yeah wow, why does imgur crush things so much on mobile?

    yes, good joke.

Anon commented:
Ian replied: