CuriousCat Archive Page 89 of 202

  1. What's in a zombie's head (brain)?

    zombie

  3. Which Community character you identify as?

    I'm never going to identify as a Dan Harmon character

  4. If we redistribute all of the wealth held by american billionaires equally among all Americans, how much would each american get?

    the total wealth held by billionaires in the US is $4.18 trillion and there are 328.2 million Americans, so we'd all be getting $12,736.14 if we put all 614 billionaires' heads on spikes

    also worth considering: the total amount of US currency in the world, held locally and abroad, is $19.9 trillion

    if we equalized that across the entire population, every person in the country, from infant to great grandmother, would have sixty thousand, six hundred and thirty-three dollars and seventy-six cents

    Jeff Bezos has over 194 billion dollars

    that is 3.2 million times what a single person would have in our equalized distribution; as in, 3.2 million people would have to have nothing for Bezos to be Bezos

    another thing to think about: Jeff Bezos' net worth is roughly equivalent to 1% of all US currency (0.97%)

  5. So it turns out that my father, who happens to be the most important thing in my life, MIGHT make close to 100k-150k a year. Am I any less of a leftist for this, or for still remaining extremely close to him despite of that? What do I do with all this self-loathing I have?

    fun story: around the year 2000 my dad was making about 180k a year. then George W. Bush slashed taxes and the country immediately went into a recession, like it always does. my dad's company took a hit and he got laid off. about seven years later he cashed out his stock options and the money from selling his house to open a small business, just in time for the Great Recession - caused by W slashing more taxes and not regulating the housing market - and he was bankrupt within two years. this is why I dropped out of college and couldn't finish my degree until my mid-thirties.

    your dad is doing well, all things considered, but he's still only a few bad turns away from being broke, because that's life under capitalism for all but the wealthy.

    the goal of leftism is not to hate everyone who lives comfortably. there is nothing shameful about the life your dad lives; it's the life WE ALL deserve, but most of us can't achieve because we're bankrolling a handful of billionaires.

  6. Is spreadsheet a verb? Is logisticate a verb?

    in response to How does spreadsheeting helps poly people?

    the English language is plastic. we used them as verbs and you understood them. therefore they can be verbs.

  8. This weather is going to slay me, i genuinely looked at this question for 2 actual minutes wondering what Brian David Gilbert had to do with Israel
    I'm going to make more old bay ice cream now, whats a weird ice cream you discovered you liked recently?

    in response to Sorry, this was a joke that I wasn't able to land, about how people routinely mistake other acronyms for BDS. I would never sincerely accuse you of supporting Israel.

    nothing weird, just getting a better sense of what plant-milks are best for different flavors. e.g. rice milk is great for light flavors - makes a great cinnamon or paler chocolate - while cashew milk has proven INCREDIBLE for salted caramel.

  9. How is therapy not just a super-charged "have you tried not being depressed"?

    in response to This may be too out of your realm, but I am really struggling with acknowledging and accepting that I might be disabled. Or at least , abled in a way that doesn't fit in capitalism. Have you figured out how to navigate this? Getting to the place where you're able to admit that the things you expect of yourself, the things you used to be capable of, are unreasonable? My issues are more brain/hormones/mental health than physical health, and I sometimes find myself wishing it was physical so that it would be concrete and not something I could potentially be lying to myself about.

    therapy helps you understand and manage your depression. no therapeutic methodology I've heard of has expected clinical depression to ever go away.

  10. This may be too out of your realm, but I am really struggling with acknowledging and accepting that I might be disabled. Or at least , abled in a way that doesn't fit in capitalism. Have you figured out how to navigate this? Getting to the place where you're able to admit that the things you expect of yourself, the things you used to be capable of, are unreasonable?
    My issues are more brain/hormones/mental health than physical health, and I sometimes find myself wishing it was physical so that it would be concrete and not something I could potentially be lying to myself about.

    I had similar feelings to what you're describing, first when I was accepting I had depression, and again when I developed an anxiety disorder. I'm not going to be the guy who says "my experience of a very common ailment is the same as your disability." I never know exactly where issues like depression and anxiety fit under the umbrella of disability; I know people who dismiss depression as just being lazy and entitled are being ableist; I have friends trying to adopt a kid who are being stymied because one of them has anxiety issues and I would call that discrimination; but I have never considered myself "disabled." Maybe it's just because almost everyone I know deals with some degree of depression, and most of us are managing to function.

    I guess I'm saying, what you describe is familiar to me. I can tell you how I processed it, with the caveat that I don't know your situation and mine may be far to common to be applicable. But I hope it helps.

    For me, the hardest part of accepting I had depression was letting go of my old idea of "normal." I had this image of the person I was, and I needed to accept that I was never going to be that person again. (Arguably, I never had been.) It wasn't just what I was; it was what I was *supposed* to be, and what I *wanted* to be. Just a regular, well-adjusted person. I was never going to be that person.

    In material terms, accepting I had depression, getting help for it, and learning to manage its effect on my life has made me a much happier person. The years since doing this work have been happier than any of the years before. But this idea of how happy I was *going* to be, where the way I am when my symptoms are undetectable, where I can just *accomplish things* and *enjoy life* like a normal-ass person... I was never going to be that guy. Not in any ongoing way. Every time I feel like a normal, functional person - which is, again, more common now than before - is temporary, and it's only a matter of time til I'm dealing with this bullshit again.

    And it sucks.

    I don't know how applicable my experience is to yours, but, if it works for you like it does for me: the day you let go of your idea of who you were supposed to be and start accepting who you are is the day you start to feel happier. And, often enough, the stuff you do to deal with a disability is stuff that is good for you regardless - I learned a lot about being kinder to myself and accepting help from my loved ones - that can make you happier and healthier in ways you were neglecting when they weren't mission critical.

    None of this will make your issue go away, and it will always suck. But you can live with it, and you can be happy in spite of it. You can still be more than you were before you had this problem.

  12. How does spreadsheeting helps poly people?

    in response to Do you Spreadsheet?

    multiple partners means a lot of logisticating, most especially time management

  13. is it really true that most palestinian progressives favour a two state solution? i thought a one state solution was common

    in response to Different anon, but earlier you said there should be a two state solution. SOME leftists say that there shouldn’t be an explicitly Jewish state in the levant. Some of those people say there should be one state with both Israeli and Palestinians and others imply that the Israelis should leave the region, although they rarely say that explicitly. The fact that you support a two state solution implies that you support an Israeli state and some of these people take that to mean that you are pro Israel.

    That was my understanding, but it's not something I'd looked hard into.

  14. Your current situation aside, how likely is it that you will realize "Children of Loom" eventually? (After finishing TARP, of course)

    I'd give it a 70% chance

  15. Sorry, this was a joke that I wasn't able to land, about how people routinely mistake other acronyms for BDS. I would never sincerely accuse you of supporting Israel.

    in response to SSBM? Don't you support Israel?

    ah

  16. Different anon, but earlier you said there should be a two state solution. SOME leftists say that there shouldn’t be an explicitly Jewish state in the levant. Some of those people say there should be one state with both Israeli and Palestinians and others imply that the Israelis should leave the region, although they rarely say that explicitly. The fact that you support a two state solution implies that you support an Israeli state and some of these people take that to mean that you are pro Israel.

    in response to SSBM? Don't you support Israel?

    I didn't say I support a two-state solution, I said most progressives in Israel and Gaza support a two-state solution, and then questioned whether one is even possible anymore. And we know full well that when people say they "support Israel" they mean they think Israel is within their rights to bomb Palestinians, which I have very explicitly condemned. So I kinda feel like you're twisting my words here, no offense.

  17. onion article titled "American Forgets Arctic Ocean Exists." Also the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are around too.

    in response to Which Canadian coast is the best?

    this sounds sus

  19. Which Canadian coast is the best?

    canada has coasts?!

  20. Are you up to date with the recent SSBM drama circling around Hax? It seems like a subject up your alley

    shoulda known not to trust Hax when he abandoned Falcon

  21. Is there anything about chan boards that makes them intrinsically vulnerable to fashy infiltration/overtaking? I love the format of a chan board, specifically the fast and ephemeral nature of threads popping into existence and living or dying on community interest, but as I've leaned further and further left I find it harder to enjoy the actual content of those websites.

    "What tends to go on in a bull session is that the participants try out various thoughts and attitudes in order to see how it feels to hear themselves saying such things and in order to discover how others respond, without its being assumed that they are committed to what they say: it is understood by everyone in a bull session that the statements people make do not necessarily reveal what they really believe or how they really feel. The main point is to make possible a high level of candor and an experimental or adventuresome approach to the subjects under discussion. Therefore provision is made for enjoying a certain irresponsibility, so that people will be encouraged to convey what is on their minds without too much anxiety that they will be held to it. [paragraph break] Each of the contributors to a bull session relies, in other words, upon a general recognition that what he expresses or says is not to be understood as being what he means wholeheartedly or believes unequivocally to be true. The purpose of the conversation is not to communicate beliefs."
    - Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit

    The anonymity and lack of moderation on chanboard makes them breeding grounds for bull sessions, and, over time, those turn into games of one-upmanship for who can say the most extreme things. They are also where reactionaries go because their recruitment efforts can be handwaved away as "just for lulz" whenever they don't land, but can actually radicalize people when they do.

  22. To make a long story short, I'm someone who has had alt-right beliefs, has directly hurt POC and trans people in the past, has now started to realize the gravity of what that means, and has some questions about actually trying to undo that damage and not simply saying "BLM ACAB" thinking that's enough. I understand you're not the end-all be-all, but I trust your opinion in this subject. If there are resources on it that I couldn't find, I'd love to see them.

    I've seen a shocking amount of people who say to bury that part of my history, "being free of it is your reward." If you think that's okay, why? If not, how would I tell people?

    Can I do anything more to help than getting people out of the right without putting others in danger, at least for the time being?

    Finally, is it moral put myself at the risk of getting a platform in non-leftist spaces? Primarily, can I create content without the intent of getting famous off it?

    My first question would be: whom do you need to make amends to? Is it society as a whole? Is it communities you used to shit on? Is it individuals you directly harmed?

    There are three ways of looking at such a redemption, I feel. There's undoing individual harm, undoing systemic harm, and "cleansing your soul," so to speak. What you're trying to do would probably involve a mix of all three, but you're going to have to work out the proportions.

    If there are people you've personally harmed, then you'll have to find out what in specific they need from. You'll also have to accept that some may want nothing more from you. The only think I can say there is: ask them what they need, and accept their answer. If there are communities you haven't directly harmed, but you feel you participated in ideologies/movements that cause them systemic harm, you might want to work with the kinds of ideologies/movements that try to undo systemic harm. Join an activist group, help secure the vote for disenfranchised people, pick a cause you used to be on the wrong side of and get on the right side of it in real, material ways.

    As for trying to rebalance yourself in the grander, karmic sense, I think that's going to be very personal. I'm not sure I can tell you what you need to do to feel like a good person again. I do think it's good to think about these things, though, and come to conclusions yourself.

    I'd definitely recommend, however, looking into what marginalized communities have said they need to from allies and the formerly-problematic. If you feel you've been racist, look into pieces written by POC on what they need from white people. Since POC are not a monolith, maybe look at a few pieces and get a variety of opinions on the subject. I'm a very privileged white man, so I'm not going to be the best resource on that front.

    All that being said: do please take some time to enjoy your better life! Being free is not a reward, exactly, but it is a huge improvement, and, in the midst of doing whatever form of restitution you settle on, enjoy life as a healthier human being. You may even find that the restitution is, itself, enjoyable! Productive work that actually improves the world can be shockingly rewarding.

    I guess what I'm saying is: it is your job to undo the harm you have caused. It is NOT your job to be miserable. <3

  23. Imagine how it must feel to be Jeb Bush right now Seeing youre own son bend the knee to the guy that humiliated you 5 years ago

    Pence is glossing over the fact that Trump tried to have him murdered in January

  24. Do you think in the coming years the alt right will do ISIS level terrorist attacks I.E Organize bombings and shootings with possibly more than 1 person with death toll numbering in the hundreds?

    in response to What's next for the alt-right as a whole?

    that's venturing into the "predicting the future" thing I don't do. such a thing is possible. they're not very good at real organization, so it may not be terribly likely. but if you don't consider it a real threat you're underestimating them.

  25. What's next for the alt-right as a whole?

    I can't predict the future, but, from how these things have gone in the past, my best guess is a "new movement" that is made of mostly the same people but has a different name and a slightly different justification for doing all the same stuff. Like, the term "Alt-Right" is largely dead. Most of the people who embraced the label have either been disgraced or fallen from prominence. Those that still use it are dead-enders. It doesn't carry the veneer of legitimacy it did in the beginning.

    But nothing's fixed. The people who catered to the Alt-Right without embracing the label are as big as ever. The sites where the Alt-Right organized are still in operation. Many of them have survived multiple such movements - Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, Breitbart, various chan and kun boards, they all predate the Alt-Right and are full of people salivating for the next movement. The few that got shut down have been replaced. Even the figureheads who fell from grace are waiting for the right moment to stage a comeback.

    As with GamerGate, all it would take is a new vaguely legitimate-sounding movement or a figure to rally around - ideally both - and all the same people will pick up right where they left off.

    That is, at least, how these things have typically gone.

  26. there are books on this, philosophy tube read a bunch of them while talking to sex workers (some of those discussions are on the video!) there is 0 reason to not go and find out about what the actual problems for sex workers are (protip your gut reaction is a bigger one than you think) and if you don't like the video, she has citations of actual books *by sex workers*
    Go read those!

    in response to It was never my intention to offend, or contradict anyone's lived experience. But the fact is that the institution of sex work has systemic issues (the ways it complicates consent being just one example) that decriminalization isn't going to fix overnight, or even meaningfully reduce. Which is why I can't in good conscience support it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DZfUzxZ2VU

  27. Can we get this anon to explain what they mean by 'complicates consent'? They mostly have just asserted it and then said that, therefore, decriminalizing sex work isn't good, but I'd like to know what they mean by it, and why it would be more complicated if sex work were decriminalized than it is currently.

    in response to It was never my intention to offend, or contradict anyone's lived experience. But the fact is that the institution of sex work has systemic issues (the ways it complicates consent being just one example) that decriminalization isn't going to fix overnight, or even meaningfully reduce. Which is why I can't in good conscience support it.

  28. It was never my intention to offend, or contradict anyone's lived experience. But the fact is that the institution of sex work has systemic issues (the ways it complicates consent being just one example) that decriminalization isn't going to fix overnight, or even meaningfully reduce. Which is why I can't in good conscience support it.

    in response to Can I just say that I'm Ace and a former sex worker and implying that every time I've had sex in my life has been rape is extremely insulting and stupid. Just because I don't enjoy sex doesn't mean I can't make decisions about what I do with my body for money or my partner's benefit because I love them or for any other reason. Sorry I don't have a question, this is just absolute bullshit.

    You seem to have a very concrete understanding of what will or won't happen if we decriminalize sex work, or how sex workers are or aren't exploited, that is based almost entirely on what your guts tell you. It doesn't seem like you've listened to any sex workers or looked into cities that have legal sex work to see whether the systemic issues you cite have been reduced.

    I would recommend exploring these subjects with a spirit of curiosity rather than trying to confirm your gut feelings and seeing what you come away with.

  29. Do you Spreadsheet?

    I'm polyamorous. Of course I spreadsheet.

  30. What drew you to adventure games initially when you started playing them: More the puzzle-solving or the narrative?

    I dunno, I went to CompUSA and was absolutely fascinated by the Secret of Monkey Island demo. I was six. I didn't know much about what games were or weren't supposed to be. My dad got me Monkey Island, and that came with a plug for LOOM, so I asked for that as well. And then I started getting other LucasArts games, and my best friend at the time played Sierra games so we'd play those at his place. I didn't have a gaming console (save the Atari 2600, for which I didn't have many games), so computer games were the thing for me. And, in 1990, "computer game" and "video game" were two *very* different things.

    So adventures just seemed normal? And it wasn't til years later, when computers got fast enough that they could handle games like Quake and the medium exploded in popularity, that still liking adventures was something you had to justify. They were just... what I played. Even the computer lab at school usually had some text adventures on it.

    But, yeah, interactive narrative has always felt kind of magic to me.

  31. yes you are cute!

    that can't be right

  32. What pieces of art (movies, television, video games, books, etc.) make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

    I'm gonna be the most basic-ass piece of shit and say the Amelie soundtrack

  33. Can I just say that I'm Ace and a former sex worker and implying that every time I've had sex in my life has been rape is extremely insulting and stupid. Just because I don't enjoy sex doesn't mean I can't make decisions about what I do with my body for money or my partner's benefit because I love them or for any other reason.

    Sorry I don't have a question, this is just absolute bullshit.

    in response to I can't believe I have to say this but...the act of sexual intercourse is, *biologically*, meant to be a pleasurable experience for humans. At least in comparison to other animals for whom procreation is *not* a pleasurable experience. That's all I was really referring to. I really didn't think that was a controversial take. The 'sex and pizza' joke was just me being glib. But really, all I want to say is that the only reason a woman (And let's be honest, it's mostly women we're talking about here) should be having sex is that she *wants* to engage in sexual intercourse with a particular person at a particular time *for her own pleasure*. And guess what? If her partner turns out to be mediocre and halfway through she says "stop", then the sex should stop. Can we agree on that? But if said partner is *paying* her for the privilege of using her body as a fleshlight without concern for her pleasure, and she *needs* that money for whatever reason, she might *not* say stop in a situation she otherwise would. And even if she does say stop, said partner might be emboldened to get his moneys worth anyway. Transactional sex complicates consent. And consent should *not* be complicated.

  34. Even if it depends on how we define exploitation?

    in response to Can individuals or companies get rich without exploitation?

    if your definition of exploitation does not include billionaires, I don't think it's a useful definition, sorry

  35. Don't you think it would be better for the labour cause to show that slavery had and has many other permutations than the american one? If you know that in Roman slavery a slave that sold his master's good in the markets could keep some of the proceeds then "wage slavery" won't seem like a contradiction in terms.

    in response to Why do you think slavery excludes white people? Slavery is much older than the racially-based, transatlantic version of it.

    and why do you feel the word "slavery" is so much more important than simply "coercion?" is it because "slavery" carries more charge? and is the reason it carries more charge because of specifically chattel slavery? and, if so, wouldn't white people saying "my ancestors were also slaves" be a really disgusting kind of stolen valor? because that's what I think.

  36. Can individuals or companies get rich without exploitation?

    nope

  38. Why do you think slavery excludes white people? Slavery is much older than the racially-based, transatlantic version of it.

    in response to Different anon, but does this position become defensible or at least consistent if you adopt the corollary that all transactional labor is slavery? Also what's the worst pizza you've ever had

    bro. when an American brings up slavery, you know what slavery is being referenced. don't be the guy who well actualys about Eastern Europeans in the 15th century.

  39. Different anon, but does this position become defensible or at least consistent if you adopt the corollary that all transactional labor is slavery? Also what's the worst pizza you've ever had

    in response to My claim is "transactional sex is rape". As far as mediocre sex is concerned; you ever hear how sex is like pizza? Even when its bad, it's still pretty good.

    I agree with the sentiment, though I try not to throw the word "slavery" around for white people working office jobs. we can just say transactional labor is coercive.

    worst pizza I've ever had was this vegan pizzeria in Oakland. lotta good vegan food in the East Bay, but this place was trash. it was like oily cardboard and the cheese looked like jizz.

  40. Hey! I'm working on a project involving the ways that different aesthetic choices sorta rule the way we think and interact, and I'm really interested in the way that fascism, in some regard, is aesthetics *as politics*. Do you have any resources or books you'd recommend that are related to this perspective? I reckon you'd have some good input :)

    Jason Stanley's How Propaganda Works goes into that a little, though it's a bit of a muddy book that goes into a lot of other stuff, too. you can read my livetweets if you want the shorter version: https://twitter.com/InnuendoStudios/status/959598105846050821

  41. I can't believe I have to say this but...the act of sexual intercourse is, *biologically*, meant to be a pleasurable experience for humans. At least in comparison to other animals for whom procreation is *not* a pleasurable experience. That's all I was really referring to. I really didn't think that was a controversial take. The 'sex and pizza' joke was just me being glib.

    But really, all I want to say is that the only reason a woman (And let's be honest, it's mostly women we're talking about here) should be having sex is that she *wants* to engage in sexual intercourse with a particular person at a particular time *for her own pleasure*. And guess what? If her partner turns out to be mediocre and halfway through she says "stop", then the sex should stop. Can we agree on that? But if said partner is *paying* her for the privilege of using her body as a fleshlight without concern for her pleasure, and she *needs* that money for whatever reason, she might *not* say stop in a situation she otherwise would. And even if she does say stop, said partner might be emboldened to get his moneys worth anyway. Transactional sex complicates consent. And consent should *not* be complicated.

    in response to My claim is "transactional sex is rape". As far as mediocre sex is concerned; you ever hear how sex is like pizza? Even when its bad, it's still pretty good.

    sex does not, *biologically*, have to be pleasurable for the vagina. procreation works just fine if it only pleases the penis. biological determinism is a bad road to go down, not least because it doesn't help your argument, but also because it leads to a number of other, worse arguments.

    yes, if a partner says "stop," then it's assault of the sex continues. that's not really the same thing as "the sex has to be pleasurable to be consensual," because lots of people consent to sex even when they're not enjoying it. like, hi, welcome to patriarchy. I guess what I'm taking issue with here is your implication that sex is not *already* highly transactional and riddled with power imbalances, in ways that tend to favor men. you've also somewhat glided past the point I made about how making sex a financial exchange makes that transaction more explicit, and can, in some ways, actually grant the sex worker *more* agency in the transaction, which is why men often look down on it.

    I agree that commodification complicates consent, especially when people are on the edge of financial ruin. the point I'm making is that sex is not unique in this respect, that *all* labor is coercive when the alternative is financial ruin. your problem isn't with the commodification of sex, your problem is with capitalism.

  42. Is money-less society possible in today's world?

    I have a book of essays on that subject, ask me again after I read it

  43. Thread OP, again, never disagreed with you that other labor shouldn't be commodified. I have a problem with basketball players being valued for their bodies too.

    in response to I wonder how much of this discomfort is tied to sexual anxiety, conscious or not--despite the existence of sex workers & sex buyers of all genders, the commodification of sex is extremely gendered, & I think many men feel, on some level, that a larger social acceptance of sex work will create an environment in which hetero sex is expected to be a commodity that men pay for? It sounds outlandish to write it out like that, & I don't think anyone believes all of that literally, but I suspect some people's discomfort with sex work lies in fear of that sort of thing

    so why did you write me about the ethics of sex work and not the ethics of basketball?

  44. Well women also *really* look down on men who pay for sex, so it makes a bit of sense that the men would want to believe the stripper likes them.

    in response to I wonder how much of this discomfort is tied to sexual anxiety, conscious or not--despite the existence of sex workers & sex buyers of all genders, the commodification of sex is extremely gendered, & I think many men feel, on some level, that a larger social acceptance of sex work will create an environment in which hetero sex is expected to be a commodity that men pay for? It sounds outlandish to write it out like that, & I don't think anyone believes all of that literally, but I suspect some people's discomfort with sex work lies in fear of that sort of thing

    men *believe* women look down on them if they pay for sex. not sure how true that is.

  45. My claim is "transactional sex is rape". As far as mediocre sex is concerned; you ever hear how sex is like pizza? Even when its bad, it's still pretty good.

    in response to No, because sex is inherently meant to be pleasurable for all parties involved. It in fact *must* be so in order to be considered consensual, and thus *moral*. Not so with labor. Even divorced from commodification, the first peoples didn't hunt, gather and build shelters because they enjoyed it. They did those things to survive.

    your claim, very explicitly, was sex has to be pleasurable to be consensual, i.e. if you're bad in bed, you're a rapist

    the line about how bad sex is still pretty good was obviously written by a man

  46. I wonder how much of this discomfort is tied to sexual anxiety, conscious or not--despite the existence of sex workers & sex buyers of all genders, the commodification of sex is extremely gendered, & I think many men feel, on some level, that a larger social acceptance of sex work will create an environment in which hetero sex is expected to be a commodity that men pay for? It sounds outlandish to write it out like that, & I don't think anyone believes all of that literally, but I suspect some people's discomfort with sex work lies in fear of that sort of thing

    in response to Different anon, but yes I can put into words why the commodification of sex sounds like a bad idea to me: because it raises issues of consent.

    Yes, there's a discomfort men feel around the idea of sex work because it means paying for something they feel entitled to. I don't think it's a worry about *all* hetero sex being commodified, but more an anxiety about what commodificaiton means for them. Robot Hugs has a great comic about this, but it appears to be a dead link at the moment and I can't find a backup anywhere. [ EDIT: it's back online! https://www.robot-hugs.com/comic/strip/ ]But, in short: we live in a highly sexualized society that already commodifies women's bodies, but the people *viewing* those bodies are rarely the ones *paying* for it. It's paid for by an ad firm or a movie studio, and the male viewer is the beneficiary. This draws attention away from the fact that the sexuality is a performance, that the woman is also being paid.

    Robot Hugs points out the way men often denigrate strippers as they walk out of the gentleman's club. Like, they just paid money to see some women take their clothes off, and then walked out and said they were gross! RH interviews a stripper who talks about why men perform this way. She argues it's because men don't like the commodification being explicit; they want the fantasy that women are performing purely for the viewer's benefit. Making it a financial transaction bounds it: there is a point in time where it begins, and one where it ends, and a value attached to it, and once that value is depleted he has no further rights to her body. It grants a degree of control to the performer, and robs the viewer of the fantasy that she's in any way attracted to him. So, after the fact, he has to perform disgust at *a product he just paid for*.

    The fact is, a lot of female sexuality under patriarchy is performative. Men don't like having that fact made explicit, or having women be the direct beneficiaries.

    But that's only one factor! I think the bigger issue is the romantic notion that sex is sacred and therefore shouldn't be transactional. This is one of those quirks of capitalism: there are a LOT of things we consider sacred that probably shouldn't be transactional - it probably shouldn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to give birth in a hospital. But, since that sacred act has always BEEN commodified, it seems normal. But sex is sacred and ISN'T commodified (not officially, anyway), so THAT feels wrong to bring money into.

    Would that people who feel this way would think about all the other kinds of labor that probably shouldn't have money attached to them...

  47. damn why are u so cute

    meeeee??

  48. Are there any hidden gems of adventure games that you know of in the "Queer Games Bundle 2021"?

    there are 236 games in this bundle and I don't appear to have played ANY of them! anyone got recs?

    https://itch.io/b/861/queer-games-bundle-2021

  49. No, because sex is inherently meant to be pleasurable for all parties involved. It in fact *must* be so in order to be considered consensual, and thus *moral*. Not so with labor. Even divorced from commodification, the first peoples didn't hunt, gather and build shelters because they enjoyed it. They did those things to survive.

    in response to Different anon, but yes I can put into words why the commodification of sex sounds like a bad idea to me: because it raises issues of consent.

    I think "mediocre sex is rape" is a heck of a claim

  50. Different anon, but yes I can put into words why the commodification of sex sounds like a bad idea to me: because it raises issues of consent.

    in response to How does one reconcile the desire to see and belief that sex work should be decriminalized with the feeling that introducing market forces into sexuality and allowing people to profit from fulfilling basic sexual urges is a bad idea?

    follow up question: doesn't all commodification of labor raise issues of consent? people don't work in coal mines because they enjoy it; they do it so they can afford to eat. their consent is no less manipulated by the market than sex workers'.

  51. I actually didn't imply that I agree with other forms of labor being in a marketplace but sure: valuing people based on their body, something they can't really change about themselves, makes me sad

    in response to How does one reconcile the desire to see and belief that sex work should be decriminalized with the feeling that introducing market forces into sexuality and allowing people to profit from fulfilling basic sexual urges is a bad idea?

    does it bother you more or less than, say, basketball players being more highly valued if they're tall?

  52. How does one reconcile the desire to see and belief that sex work should be decriminalized with the feeling that introducing market forces into sexuality and allowing people to profit from fulfilling basic sexual urges is a bad idea?

    well, a couple of things: 1) the market forces are already there, and decriminalization is primarily about making that exchange safer, healthier, and more consensual, and 2) can you put into words why sex being a marketplace feels like a bad idea in a way that other forms of labor don't?

  53. Okay you might want to reconsider that one because that's the DSA logo, and even though I'm a member just the fact that I had the impulse to warn you not to unintentionally associate yourself with us probably speaks volumes

    in response to And what's that?

    look when you click the GIF button on Curious Cat and enter your search term it gives you like 16 GIFs to choose from, several of them duplicates. so it was this or Bernie Sanders, and I'm tired of Bernie being the icon of American leftism.

    we all have to make do.

  54. Is it sexist to use the term "man-hours" and if so what should it be replaced with?

    work hours

  57. Does this mean we're either going to have to dismantle capitalism or wait for renewable technology to get better (or both) before we tackle climate change?

    in response to Why is capitalism fucking up on climate change so badly? Don't states and capitalists have a strong interest in preventing the destruction of civilization? Why can't they do anything about it?

    We're going to keep tackling climate change either way, but dismantling capitalism and/or improving renewable technology will make that effort much more achievable.

  58. Different Anon, do you find in your experience this applies to gay guys as well, or do they still hold onto those stereotypes?

    in response to this is just evidence that you have a lot of issues that you're still working through

    I've generally gotten along better with queer men, but I haven't ended up close with many. I don't think I've felt the same guarded superficiality with them, so it may be that decades of cishet socialization has left me unsure how to navigate interactions with men who don't adhere to those tendencies?

  59. what's thc been like, as someone who seems to live a p sober life? is it more recommended than cbd?

    I'm not exactly taking rips off the bong, just occasional gummies or THC oil. I don't know that it makes the pain go away as it makes it feel more distant? like it's easier to ignore. the first few times I got a little high - sillier, more aware of physical sensations, odd sense that I was taller than usual - but that's lessened over time. it's a low dose. mostly I feel kinda drowsy.

  60. Why is capitalism fucking up on climate change so badly? Don't states and capitalists have a strong interest in preventing the destruction of civilization? Why can't they do anything about it?

    so here's the issue: at this moment in time, things that are destructive to the environment - fossil fuels, plastics, gas-powered cars - are profitable. they're finite resources, and they cause long-term destruction that will eventually affect the market, but, in this moment, they see a higher return-on-investment than the alternative. plastic is cheap. fossil fuels have established industries that are fairly optimized, where solar and wind power have a high start-up cost and do not, at this moment, yield as much power per dollar spent as coal and oil.

    now, lets imagine some new company that says, " no, we're going to use 100% renewable energy and boycott harmful materials like plastic and styrofoam." this is good in theory. but let's think this through: this is, in the short term, more expensive. renewable energy and compostable materials aren't the huge industries that coal and plastic are, so they aren't produced in massive quantities. you don't get the cheapness that comes with economies of scale. also, in this moment, they tend to be sold as "boutique" services for middle-class yuppies, so suppliers sell them at a premium.

    in short, being ethical is more expensive, at least in the short-term, than being destructive. you may think, well, but it's safer in the long run, but the problem is this: in capitalism, you don't see dividends on a 20-year investment if you're getting out-competed today. you'll go out of business before you get there. it is never in your best interest to make less money than your competitors, *even if* it would be in the better interest of the entire market.

    and here's the kicker: the more people switch to green energy, the more profitable sticking with pollutants becomes! think how tempting it is to work cheaper than *half the market*!!! you could run them *all* out of business and corner the field.

    this is the issue with capitalism: competition compels people to favor short-term profits over long-term stability. the more unregulated the market, the more we see this kind of behavior.

  62. this is just evidence that you have a lot of issues that you're still working through

    in response to You only have female friends because men don't respect you

    the issue that needs to be worked through is that American masculinity is fucked and actively works against men forming real intimacy with each other. I've often found that two men, even men who *clearly* want to be open and sincere, often keep a sort of guarded, superficial affect with each other. because it feels too emotionally risky to be open with another man. it feels outright transgressive, and what if you've misread the signals and he *doesn't* want emotional intimacy with another man? it's coded as queer, or weak, or effeminate, or any number of "failures" to be manly. to the point where guys who don't buy into that are still afraid of each other, because what if the other guy *does* buy into it? the stereotype is that a man can only even open up with a romantic partner - i.e. a single woman has to handle *all* of his emotional needs - or with his bros at the bar after everybody is absolutely hammered and it's okay to hug and say "I love you guys," and where it all fades away in the morning hangover.

    after years of trying to navigate this shit I just stopped bothering. I'm not opposed to friendship with men, it's just so much more effort, often for very little payoff. being friends with women and genderqueer folks is easier, and usually more rewarding.

  64. Speaking of neo-noir, have you seen The Little Things? The one starring Rami Malek, Denzel Washington & Jared Leto

    heard about it. AV Club said it was pleasant but kinda generic.

  67. You only have female friends because men don't respect you

    I have female friends because I don't respect men

  68. Who are the twelve more pretentious people than you on Youtube?

    nice try, cop

  69. Thoughts on any of the Silent Hill games?

    Thoughts on any of the Dead Space games?

    Love your work, hope you get better soon!

    I don't play scary games

  70. But is war as a method of determining territory not unjust? A bunch of soldiers from one country winning against a bunch of soldiers in another country a couple centuries ago seems like a deeply unjust way to consider land rights.

    in response to Here is a concrete example: the southwestern quarter of the United States. It was stolen by the United States from Mexico. Mexico sort of stole that land from Spain when it gained independence. Spain stole that land from the various indigenous peoples of that area. If the United States gave it back to anyone, most people would say it should be given back to the native groups, but you method implies it should be given to Mexico. Who should it be given to?

    nobody said it was just

  71. mexico is a third world country that has lots of indigenous people though it’s not really just another coloniser

    in response to Here is a concrete example: the southwestern quarter of the United States. It was stolen by the United States from Mexico. Mexico sort of stole that land from Spain when it gained independence. Spain stole that land from the various indigenous peoples of that area. If the United States gave it back to anyone, most people would say it should be given back to the native groups, but you method implies it should be given to Mexico. Who should it be given to?

    and the indigenous people there would be the ones the land would be given back to

  72. a lot of reactionaries would argue that all colonized land was "won in a war," so maybe "land taken through conquest isn't stolen" isn't exactly the position one would want to take

    in response to Here is a concrete example: the southwestern quarter of the United States. It was stolen by the United States from Mexico. Mexico sort of stole that land from Spain when it gained independence. Spain stole that land from the various indigenous peoples of that area. If the United States gave it back to anyone, most people would say it should be given back to the native groups, but you method implies it should be given to Mexico. Who should it be given to?

    I think colonizers fighting amongst themselves over land they both stole should be categorized differently from the original colonization. I'm open to using a different term for that distinction, so long as we make the distinction clear.

  73. Here is a concrete example: the southwestern quarter of the United States. It was stolen by the United States from Mexico. Mexico sort of stole that land from Spain when it gained independence. Spain stole that land from the various indigenous peoples of that area. If the United States gave it back to anyone, most people would say it should be given back to the native groups, but you method implies it should be given to Mexico. Who should it be given to?

    in response to Maybe using variables would help? A has a thing, B steals the thing from A, C steals the thing from B, and We are C. We as C gove the thing to B, and then B to A, we DON'T give directly back to A, correct?

    I guess I don't really include "land won in a war" or "land gained through revolution" in my conception of "stolen land." And I guess when I say "we" I don't mean that one group of European settlers should trade land back and forth between one another, I say "we" to refer to all the European settlers. Colonization is when the land was stolen.

    Not sure that's a fair use of the terminology, but that's how I was using it.

  74. Maybe using variables would help? A has a thing, B steals the thing from A, C steals the thing from B, and We are C. We as C gove the thing to B, and then B to A, we DON'T give directly back to A, correct?

    in response to yes but how far back in history do we go is a question in europe, asia and africa

    variables do not help, because I'm asking for real-world examples, and find the lack of them conspicuous

  75. If I stole a bike and found out it was already stolen, I think I'd feel a bit better.

    If I found out that the original legal owner and their entire family was dead, and every owner after that was a thief, I would keep the bike.

    in response to Giving the land back to the people who originally lived on it is a really thorny thing to apply worldwide, I think- how far back are we willing to go on the "originally" part It also seems to assume a certain mythical, static north american past with nation states and clearly defined borders and complete lack of wars of conquest among native americans

    can someone please use a concrete example for these analogies other than Israel?

Anon commented:
Ian replied: