7. Joker laugh HAHAHAHAHAHA

I am familiar, in part, that’s what I was kinda thinking of when I wrote that. I probably should’ve brought it up explicitly, though, you’re correct. I have seen/heard that recent numbers have been up for membership but I haven’t heard enough beyond that to know whether or not the organization itself is actually performing well or is doing anything for members, so I guess I didn’t feel comfortable explicitly talking about it.

Seems like the short version of my Intro to American Politics class at Uni.

What’s insane is that’s something you have to go to university to be taught. In this society, where it is purported that democracy is part of the fundamental fabric, most people understand absolutely nothing. If they even get taught about relatively basic things like what I’ve described, which is to say nothing of the legalese-reading abilities you might need to verify that, say, a ballot measure is what it says it is, they apparently don’t end up remembering any of it. So instead we get doomed to listen to the same conversations, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, every election cycle. They’re like cicadas, waking up every couple years, chirping, and then immediately going back to sleep as soon as it’s over.

I dunno. I find legitimate political debates to be interesting, informative, at least sometimes when I can tolerate the cringe levels at work there. I’ve been unfortunately forced to take a crash course, kick start education on every political conflict that’s been started as a result of israel, which also includes like, political context surrounding every country they fuck with, and every country that supports those countries that israel fucks with. I find that, if heartbreaking, to be a good opportunity for me to learn, because at least I get somewhere with that. But I dunno, I feel like the tendency of the average commenter is just to scroll past, or read whatever the top line I’ve posted is and then try to get me to spoonfeed them on that basis, which is obviously never going to work because they can just spin the conversation whatever direction they want, where they’ll probably end up learning less than nothing, they’ll probably just use me as another vector to reinforce their own beliefs.

So, I dunno. It all seems totally hopeless to me. I remembered forums being a much more useful vector for talking to people, but more and more often it seems like it’s less worthwhile, and I just end up retreating to my own bubble, using whatever outlet I find to post like I’m posting to a personal blog that I know nobody is going to read. It’s worthless. If I were to optimize this paragraph I’ve written, with citations, much clearer language, and make it more succinct, and then post that under all these types of posts, or, propagate that as copypasta, then despite it being more well thought out and ultimately much less spammy than the idiotic bad faith trolling that most people tend to engage in, it would probably, maybe rightly, get banned on the basis of being spam. More and more, this place, every place online, reveals itself to just be another horrible vector for the propaganda of whatever interested parties decide to manipulate the levers and pulleys controlling the tubes.

Now I classify myself as an anarchist. Not sure what went wrong.

And, see, I never even got that far. I’m still just some guy that want everyone to have healthcare and good public infrastructure, and wants wars and genocides to not be happening constantly. I don’t even know what political system is supposed to make that work, and I don’t really give a fuck which one it takes, I just want that to be the case.

Yeah, pretty much, that’s pretty much all I’ve said, yeah

Unfortunately, after a year of witnessing their entire ethnicity being written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international diplomacy and foreign lobbying, they’ve become numb and just stopped caring.

The craziest part of this to me is that this isn’t the first time this has happened since it’s started like… since the country has been founded. So the fact they’re really still willing to engage politically at all is a pretty good testament to their character, I would say.

Everyone else is basically going to give you dogshit answers, here, and I’m not gonna read through the thread to confirm that because I’ve been in enough of these threads on lemmy to know that it’s going to be the most oversimplified and horrible hand-wavy explanations you could’ve hoped for. I think maybe the collective effort people put into their posts on the internet is dwindling as a result of mass adoption and various social media incentive structures, to the point where even platforms like lemmy are gonna get filled with horrible dogshit and just the worst oldest facebook memes of all time. Don’t listen to all those fucking morons, listen to me, I’m the only one effortposting in this removed, because I have psychosis and like to write these out as a way to take notes and review my talking points.

SO, at the lowest level, you have gerrymandering. This applies to things like city council seats within cities, it applies to what gets defined as “inside” and “outside” the city and the county, it applies to districts that elect representatives at the state level, and it even, to a certain degree, applies to the states themselves. Basically, every time the electorate gets subdivided, something you would otherwise think is a good thing, as it lets people be governed more with concerns local to that subdivision, instead, those lines get drawn up most often to favor the party that is currently sitting in that seat. Being that this is instituted at pretty much every level of governance, and that people don’t tend to change addresses super often, especially homeowners, this contributes to why most states are not swing states, and why most votes are very predictably “wasted”, or, are used by the parties to cancel out other very predictable votes, or are used to further secure and entrench power with more overwhelming margins.

You also have first-past-the-post voting in the vast majority of places, abbreviated as fptp voting, in which you have a single, non-transferable vote. Proponents of this system can basically only defend it on its braindead simplicity, because there’s not really any reality in which it accurately represents the interests of the voters. If you think of a voting system as being a way for voters to clearly communicate their preferences, and have those preferences followed, then fptp voting only provides one bit of information: “I want this guy”. It doesn’t rate candidates in relation to each other, it doesn’t tell anyone whether or not you would prefer one candidate over another. So, people get locked in to voting for one candidate which has proved to be consistently popular, and has a good chance of winning so they don’t “waste” their vote, which as previously described, is probably already wasted, and so we get locked into a two-party system pretty much everywhere.

Both these systems combine to severely limit the weight of anyone’s vote. It effectively means that, outside a couple gerrymandered suburbs, in particular swing states, which can be figured out well in advance of elections, the rest of the votes don’t matter. Most votes are just locked in a system where they are effectively being used by the sitting parties to cancel each other out.

Most local races are funded at the local level, meaning they tend to favor older, much more well-off candidates which don’t necessarily represent the majority of people’s interests. This outsized power can be increased with gerrymandering. Americans also tend to favor sitting candidates over new candidates, both because of FPTP, and also because culturally FPTP has become ingrained, meaning incumbent candidates tend to be able to sit around for as long as they want. Primaries are pretty much unilaterally controlled by the parties that run them, as we have seen in this election, and they are able to pretty effectively select who it is that they want to be elected through the funding and backing of the party, within their territories, which is something that’s happening at every level, and not just at the presidential level. So, economics and economic disparity has a great role to play in who is able to run for local positions, on top of obviously having a very clear role at higher levels. Less money can also have a very outsized impact in local, smaller elections, where candidates can court corporate interests and party interests and then bankroll their way into a position pretty much guaranteed. This is why you can pretty much dismiss anyone who’s going to suggest that you go and run for local office, as though that’s some gotcha. They wouldn’t know, because they probably also haven’t run for their local offices, but especially at the higher levels, those local offices tend to be controlled by elderly small business owners and a bunch of lawyers. Canvassing and commercials are pretty effective, especially when you can concentrate these on the gerrymandered fraction of the population with values already favorable to institutional powers, which is having an outsized impact.

So, given that your vote is pretty much guaranteed to not matter, is especially guaranteed to not matter at the federal level, and is very especially not going to matter if you live anywhere with any significant population density, lots of people take that as an opportunity to piss their vote away on jill stein or whatever other scammer that’s running. Of course, third parties would probably be more effective at the smaller local levels, building up larger and larger bases of support until they are more adequately able to challenge the major parties at the federal level, and even try for federal funding, but we’ve seen such a level of institutional capture at pretty much every level that it’s sort of a fucked game to begin with.

It’s so fucked up at every level that I’m not sure I would really fault the parties that are running with like, 2% of the votes, in polling, compared to the fucking massive country-wide institutions that are actually controlling elections and messaging. Those that can even get 2% of the votes are likely to get those votes because they’ve been donated to by one side, the other, or, much more commonly, both, on top of business interests and foreign powers, who all believe that adding in another spoiler candidate will help their candidate get elected.

To hopefully dissuade some idiotic criticisms before they happen:

Q: Well, then what am I to do!?! If I can’t vote on a candidate, and have my vote be effective for that candidate, then what have I done politically? What’s the alternative?

A: None of that really contradicts any of what I’m currently saying, it’s not a valid counterargument. I’ve told you the reality of the system, if you have a problem with how your current strategy is not effective in that reality, then take it up with reality, not me. I would probably say that organizations outside of the system, organizations owned by a majority of the people within them, organizations that can wield political power, those would probably be useful. Organizations that can punch above their weight class economically would be most useful. We’ve seen a recent, very minor rise in unionization and union activity, after decades of downturn as a result of government policies, which has been good, but I am concerned again about many of these unions, and especially the older ones, being subject to institutional capture at the highest levels as a result of ill-thought out internal structures and a desire to “keep out the raffle”, from elitism, classism, or racism. If I had thoughts of reformism, then I would aim there, and I would probably also aim to create a lot more interconnections between these smaller unions which are more individually vulnerable. One big union, would be a good idea suited to the moment, and I haven’t seen it taken up a lot.

And sure, go out and vote, right, but, don’t harbor any illusions about what you’re doing when you go out and vote. Focus more on your local candidates and your obscure, idiotic local laws and regulations which are probably going to be explained poorly in some half-baked blogpost or news article, if you’re even afforded that dignity rather than just having to read shit straight from the charters and laws themselves. Don’t just get invested every 4 years when you get threatened with a new form of fascism by corporate media. If you’re falling for that shit, then you’re probably running around like a chicken with their head cut off, doing worse than nothing. If you’re not willing to put in an hour or two of concentrated reading and research in the right places, then you would be better off, at that point, just ignoring all those anxieties, not voting, and eating jalapeno poppers at chili’s or whatever else.

Q: This shit is too long, I can’t read it all!

A: Tl;dr GOTO 10

federated platform splits userbase into a million little fiefdoms, only somewhat interconnected, all differently starved for interaction

Yup, checks out

You could still probably blow with your mouth if you didn’t have your lungs connected, I imagine it would involve a kind of burping type of action. I think the bigger problem would be that if your nostrils closed up, you wouldn’t be able to breathe, and probably also talking would be a lot harder if your vocal chords and mouth were separate from your main air sacs.

I think the solution is probably just an easily opened and closed internal valve that separates the stomach and the lungs, rather than this bullshit we currently have with two separate valves that lead into both and open for one and then close for the other whenever it’s required. It’s still good to be able to close both when you want to, but you can already close your mouth on command, and another valve with the nose is a notable upgrade in that it keeps everyone from smelling bad smells they don’t wanna smell, and it also doesn’t take any more valves than we already have.

There’s probably some way you could fix this all with enough surgical intervention, I bet…

I’m gonna try not to go line by line here because I think it would end up swelling the comment sizes to a ludicrous degree like when I was vent posting and also I just woke up so I don’t wanna do that, but I dunno. I am mostly convinced that markets are not actually good at allocating things because they assume rational actors, they externalize costs and thrust them upon the public and the government, because they replicate centrally planned monopolies anyways. I also don’t like them because we broadly don’t look a the core power structures that end up manifesting under markets, which are mainly authoritarian and thus obviously have information problems allocating resources, on top of information problems that arise as a result of competition between market actors. I would rather just organize the economy in a way that makes sense, even if it ignores the fundamental right, the fundamental good, the fundamental freedom, of private property and capital.

The broader point I was trying to make about rationality and ethics, is that capitalism and markets have a core conceit of what like, is good, fundamentally. This idea of “freedom” right. Maybe it’s cooked up by the americans, I dunno, not really my point, I’m just looking at the fundamental core values that differentiate each system. In socialism, I’m gonna be looking at like, the organization of power structures, whether or not they’re democratically organized, I’m gonna be looking at central planning vs, I guess the markets would be considered a decentralized form of planning, maybe, though you could also have like decentralized little anarchist communes running around or whatever. Socialism is a pretty broad tent. In capitalism, though, I’m gonna be looking at the ownership of private property, of capital, as a fundamental, core value that makes the system turn. The ownership of capital is thought of as a good, as a fundamental right, a fundamental freedom that people should be afforded. That’s what capitalism is.

Also, again, I’m not so sure you can just be like, “killing old people is economically rational” type of thing. That’s assuming a kind of core value to those economics that you’re using, economics, like rationality, like, we commonly assume a value when we use economics because we live in a sociopolitical context where the people who use economics are going to be using them for a very specific purpose, right, but ultimately “economics”, what we call economics, is just sort of the study of like, resources and how they’re used and shit. I dunno if I wanted to come up with a better definition I can, but ja. But we still have to come up with a core value that motivates the shit along, there, is what I’m saying.

That’s what I’m talking about. The fact that so often in capitalism, the values are assumed. Maybe it’s because we exist in a kind of post-history, end of history reality, where capitalism and neoliberalism won, or whatever, but we assume that whatever is good is whatever makes money, and we assume that whatever makes money is economically efficient. And then, if killing old people can make us money, we do that. But we don’t pay attention to the broader contexts under which all of this takes place, which shapes the incentive structure, it shapes whether or not a particular company can make money doing something or not. That’s my point, is that we don’t look at those core systems, their incentive structures, their organizational structures, we just say “leave it up to the market”, and then the market just sort of shakes out somewhat randomly but mostly towards little authoritarian fiefdoms and monopolies. And we do that because we assume that to chase after private property, and capital, and to be a capitalist, is a sort of core freedom, a core good, a core moral value, which is supposed to exist for everyone.

Also, I must address this, right:

My primary concern for something like socialism is that we would remove some fundamental level of freedom. Only building high density housing because it’s what the collective hive mind says.

So, collective hive mind, right, I dunno. Halfway, that sounds like democracy to me. I mean, there’s a lot of reasons, again, divorced from the organizational structure, that I’ve put forward in my previous comment and I could put forward now, you probably know the arguments already, as to why higher density housing is a good idea, why it’s rational, why it’s logically sensible, especially when done at scale. If we give most people the “freedom”, to choose which housing they want to live in, then we kind of run into a prisoner’s dilemma where people of means believe that it’s in their best interest to turn themselves into antisocial suburbanoid hermits that can live apart from the “others” that live in the city, they can commute in and out, they can retain some level of status as a result of their lifestyle, and maybe because of this they can gain some level of luxury through living in suburbia, at least for the first 20 or 30 years before their house fucking crumbles into dust cause it was made of particleboard and sad dreams.

So, is their “freedom” to choose to live in suburbia, is that thought of as more democratic than the popular will might be, because it afforded that minority of people the power to live as they chose, right? Or is it actually less free, is it actually less democratic, because it imposed the will of that minority of people on the majority of people which would’ve rather lived without the issues that suburbia brings to them? i.e. racism, increased utilities costs, increased maintenance costs, financial and economic insolvency leading to crumbling infrastructure, pollution, massive ecological costs, I’ve said this shit already, you get the point. I would say that the former, obviously, forcing people to live either in high density housing, then having some proportion of people live in like, cabins in the woods where they do permaculture style farming, and then maybe having the rest of the people just live totally separate from your society maybe even if they so choose, right, I can argue why that makes more sense as a whole in material reality, why it logically makes more sense. But the question as to which one is good, which one affords more freedom, which one is morally correct, that’s an open question. I put my chips, so far as that exists, in the camp where we’re not doing massive amounts of ecological damage.

But, that’s the core sort of, distinction I’m trying to get at, here, which motivates the difference between capitalism and, not even socialism or communism necessarily, but just between capitalism and other systems. That core ideological divide, that belief in chasing capital as a right, that’s what I’m trying to get at.

Removed by mod

If the economy were operating under rationality it would probably stop feeding elderly people as they can’t do any work and don’t provide much in the way of productivity, for example.

See, so that’s like, I dunno if that’s so much a problem. First off, rationality is sort of just a method that you’re using to affect some type of process, in this case, economic efficiency Under which it probably also wouldn’t make sense to, say, just throw old people off of big towers or whatever type of thing. People would probably overthrow your system, you’d deal with a high level of instability, and being unable to track people’s ages effectively, which seems pretty inefficient, people might also try to move, or leave your system as they get older. So I’d expect some level of brain drain there, which leads to another point: You’re also decreasing any worker productivity you would gain from old joe who ran the lumber yard still being around, so you can ask him questions about the quirks of the lumber yard. Maybe old joe even just boosts worker productivity by the fact that he makes his family and friends happier, and more able to tolerate bad working conditions, longer work hours, or more desirable than that, maybe he gives them the will to learn more, and bring you better higher level jobs where they will be ultimately much more efficient for whatever time they do end up spending on production. But back to rationality, that’s just a method you’re using to evaluate things. In this case, maybe “efficiency”, which is sort of a proxy value for other, more real values. Efficiency to do what? Usually by, economic efficiency, we mean like, we’re minimizing the necessary inputs, to affect some productive capacity, while maximizing the outputs, in like, a material way. But then, maybe the sort of our core value that we’re chasing after should be to maximize the happiness that old joe is capable of giving to his friends and family, or something harder to define and measure, and more along those lines. That, that would maybe be a flaw of socialist systems, that we don’t have some universal definition of a “good” to work towards, but I would say that, again, that’s not a distinct flaw of those systems in particular, and in capitalism, that just gets subsumed by a bunch of other bullshit values. You don’t have a universal definition of good, because you’re always just making short term moves to maximize the profit of your company. Moral miasma, zombification.

Getting even more off topic, I think in general though my main counterargument is just that like. Any risk we take by defining a “good”, right, a good to work towards, I think that’s a good risk to take. To take the risk that, by defining the good, you eliminate other definitions of “good” that could’veexisted, and the freedom to have those other definitions of good. It’s better to take that risk, and define that good, and then work towards it (and mostly, even to point out that such a core value exists, in practice, even acknowledge that it exists, more than anything else.). I think it’s better to do that, than substitute your “good” for “freedom”, which, like efficiency (and even like “good”, but shhh), is just a proxy value for other things. In the market, in capitalism, we define freedom as the ability to own capital, own property, spend money on what you want to spend it on, and work to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 flipping calorically and nutritionally deficient burgers for a bunch of other people who have worked to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 doing equally insane things. We define no “good” in capitalism, we just leave that shit up to the market, and the market already reaches a decision, which is that every little corporation should just replicate authoritarianism in their little shithole section of the economy. Every little corporation gets their “good”, and then they fight it out in the marketplace. Ends up that actually, we’ve just blown this up to be even every single individual, because, again, we’ve adopted freedom as our current value. Swim in the water, stop knowing that it’s there. Big shocker when the individuals at the highest level of the market, having passed through many tests to get there, big shocker when their personal definition of “good” is fucked up, short sighted, and when they can’t implement said definition if they even have one, because when they decide to do so, they get curbstomped for engaging in too much long term thinking compared to just sucking up as much of the industry as is possible at the time. I’m also not even saying that a monopoly is bad necessarily, right, as an alternative to this, I’m just saying that it’s hypocritical to the supposed value of capitalism, which should be to use market economics to do these calculations at basically every level (which I’m also not convinced would be more efficient then just doing them somewhere else). It also tends to be bad because it still exists within this context in which all this short term incentive is naturally floating around and in which the highest powers in the land are naturally selected to be bad authoritarians.

But take the ICE, for example. I fucking hate the ICE. Mostly because it has enabled mass market automobiles to become a thing, which has impacted our transportation infrastructure in a very adverse set of ways, with an adverse set of incentives. Suburbanization blows up out of white flight as america, conceived as a sort of colonial experiment in a time of slavery, obviously has a lot of hangups around 18th century conceptions of racial superiority. Then you have the corporate lobbying that affects the political system, on top of the general political system just being tailored for the wealthy from the jump (and being tuned to the wealthy over time), and badda bing badda boom pretty soon you’re ripping out LA’s streetcars to instead flood the streets with massive chunky automobiles that kill a ton of people per year, fill the air with leaded and mostly unregulated particulate emissions, and we’re like a century into that as a system now, so we’re basically locked in, and none of the fundamental problems with cars as a format have been solved, even with EVs, you’re still getting particulate emissions from brakes, lithium mining issues, you’re still getting road wear and expenses from that, you’re still spreading out cities much more than they need to be which massively increases the necessary power consumption by decreasing the r-values of homes by increasing the surface area of homes and increasing the surface area of a home in which a singular person is going to live and increasing the volume of air inside the home per person which is necessary to be heated, and then we have relay stations so we need to spend more money to pump more electricity and water a longer distance and so on and so forth. We can talk about socialism as a distinct set of values as mostly divorced from questions of authoritarianism, because it’s assumed that we’re doing this, in good faith, to decentralize ownership of everything, ownership of the workplace, restoring the ownership of the means of production to the proletariat and all that good shit. We can assume all that to be the case, right, oh, and then since we don’t want market economies to really re-emerge, replicating class dynamics inside of the apparatus of the corporation, we go from having a co-operative to just having the corporation be owned by the public, and then maybe that’s “authoritarian” even if we have a more democratic voting system than a capitalist country is allowed to have. Whatever, those are all good debates to have, those sorts of debates, they’re what socialists are gonna talk about in a sort of abstract sense, and then they’re all gonna draft up lines like, oh, I’m a marxist because of XYZ, whatever. My concern, personally, is sort of like, I look at the market economy, at capitalism, and the supposed “freedom” it provides people, in the market, to make totally dunderheaded, propagandized decisions, that if you look at them in the abstract, make totally no sense whatsoever. My concern is that we currently find ourselves in a system where all of that shit about the ICE exists, and the ICE isn’t just used to power like, a bunch of farm vehicles somewhere, and then everyone else takes the train because if I talk through every other point about car use then obviously none of it makes any sense to any set of values that isn’t “I want to kill people with my car” or “I want to waste a lot of gas” or “I want to intentionally spend a lot of money” or “I want to look cool and feel cool and manly”, type shit. That, is multiplied for like every other facet of the economy, that times a million. I hate that shit, mostly more than anything. That we can come to the correct takeaways and decisions, and then do nothing about it because the system doesn’t care. I don’t care so much how we get there, or even necessarily how authoritarian a given system is, because I think about the most that can be expected from people who have been in a capitalist society is to vote for the replication of said capitalist society with maybe some socialized benefits, democratic socialismo style, and I fully expect that shit to get rolled back in 50 years and also to exploit the third world since obviously people outside the jurisdiction of the state aren’t allowed to vote in the state’s elections. Really all I want is for everyone to just have healthcare, everyone to have good regional transit, for our energy infrastructure to make sense, our food infrastructure to make sense, I want people to stop dying in wars, whatever. The current global system fucking sucks for all that stuff. That’s mostly the only reason why I get pushed towards socialism. Mostly the specifics only exist for me insofar as they affect or not my ability to enforce that idea of “good”, which I think is pretty sensible once it actually gets spelled out into the material.

I feel like if I told you to go and read a book on socialism, and how it functions, and what some theoretical structures for it would be, that would be kind of useless and repetitive, since you’ve probably gotten that before, it’s a pretty popular response. But I think that would probably be the best solution for your confusion here, any given book you decide to pick up or get recommended on the subject will probably be able to inform you better than some random person’s re-translation of the book.

If you have gotten that response before, then I gotta ask, along with everyone else that would’ve gotten that recommendation and then not done so, why you’d still be talking about a topic that you’re not willing to invest like, I dunno, 7-8 total hours in. Probably could’ve read das kapital, and taken notes on it, and then shot those notes at a professor or other talking head online or even just some other random commenter, and then probably been done with it in the amount of time you’ve spent talking about that shit on lemmy. And that’s probably the most dense and fundamental book on the subject if we’re not getting into weird french postmodern bullshit.

Random half-baked schmucks from all walks and different schools of socialism and communism are going to present you with a litany of different explanations as to what the system actually entails, that they’re probably half-remembering and then regurgitating from youtube videos, or whatever random collection of academic works they’ve gone in for. That’s obviously not the best way to learn about the system, or really to learn about anything. Means that you’ll get weirdass definitions like:

to capitalism but if private ownership of capital isn’t a thing anymore.

Which sounds pretty much completely incoherent at its face. I have no conception of what that would look like, because the ownership of capital is a foundational enough belief in capitalism to be what the system is named after. It’s like socialism but without any socialized stuff, or communism without communal ownership.

Like, I’ve never heard of socialism entailing that you buying a product a company sells entitles you to shares in that company. You’re not a worker at said company, that doesn’t really make any sense. You also later on talk about “schizo” capital (?), shit about where money comes from (you can answer this one in capitalism, as well. Also, money =/= capital), and the economic calculation problem, which, I dunno man. I’m not going to say so much that that shit’s made up, but it’s not really a big problem, and it’s also a problem that capitalism still basically has to reckon with at a fundamental level, it just ignores it and then decides to crash every decade or so, so that the market can “prune” itself or whatever bullshit. Go hit the paul cockshott vape pen, or go read the book about walmart or whatever.

Also just like. I dunno, maybe we don’t need 15 brands of peanut butter at the supermarket which are superficially different but fundamentally the same. Maybe we can get away with just having chunky and just having smooth. Maybe the measure of an efficient economic system isn’t that there’s shelves full of a range of insubstantially different products and then also that 30-40% of the food is wasted, maybe there’s a better measure of “efficiency” there. You can’t assume that the decision making choices of people in the market are 100% rational, maybe by assuming that they’re rational we just leave the corporate propaganda apparatus totally unacknowledged, which is exactly where that apparatus likes to be. You can’t assume that there aren’t externalized costs that aren’t factored into the initial price, like how suburbia is subsidized, like how climate change is happening. You can’t assume that there’s no monopolies, which are just going to sit on top of a singular element of the chain, do all the calculations completely internal to themselves, not communicate that with anyone else, and then effectively be a centrally planned authoritarian state for that particular sector of the economy which they and they alone control completely.

Most of all, I think that you can’t assume that the government isn’t totally conscious of all of these flaws, and have decided to ignore them at the behest of corporate donors. The can gets kicked down the street.

I mean, I dunno. It’s been the “future of the internet” since the 90’s, but nobody can solve the fundamental problems with such systems existing in the actual real material world, so we just get hit with an ever dwindling supply of larger and larger social media monopolies. Same as it ever was.

You know you’re also using the internet, right?

MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life

I mean this is sort of reframed with the context that he was assassinated for making that turn away from pacifism. I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision even given the hindsight we have now, but it does recontextualize it.

All of those things can be done outside of my house, so I don’t really see any reason why not to. Beard trim, blam, here’s a razor, sandwich, here’s that shit, here’s a bottle of water, the hose is over there, here’s some soap, blam. Even if I’m cooking up the most diabolical and insane homeless person of all time, I can still fulfill all of those requests while also keeping them outside, doing very little, and maybe telling them to also fuck off after if I’m a psycho.

The rest of this is gonna mostly be venting, so you can safely ignore it if you don’t care.

People in america are totally cooked on homelessness, even though they’re, on average, metaphorically inches away from it at any given time. Homeless shelters in america mostly are horrible places to go where your shit will be stolen and they will do nothing. They’re bad for children, they’re full of drugs, and very frequently they have curfews, rules against having animals or pets, rules requiring that you go to religious ceremonies, etc. Homeless people aren’t just like, insane illogical transients. I mean they kind of are, but there’s also a reason for why they do the things that they do, that includes maybe knocking on the door of a random suburb.

I would actually find it more likely in this situation that this random person would probably want to use my toilet since there are no fucking public toilets in america, especially as private businesses will deny use of their restrooms to people who look homeless. Then people get arrested for public defecation, urination, or nudity because there’s nowhere else to go, obviously there’s also mental health, and then all you see is how some guy on the street on fent gets arrested with his pants around his ankles and his asscheeks covered in shit and you think “wow that guy’s crazy” and have no further thoughts. Context is eradicated.

Give someone in america the slightest advantage over the homeless, a shitty suburban flat, with a lower rent, that they spend two thirds or more of their income on, including roommates, and they will still somehow find a way to spit on the homeless after riding the bus into town every day cause they can’t afford a car. They will still live their lives in fear and they will still come to hate the homeless because somehow the person basically making negative income is not able to afford soap or a high-fiber diet.

It’s the “Oh, well, it’s not my problem, that sucks for them, but I’m still allowed to be offended by it.” sort of mentality. You can give them every reason under the sun why hating the homeless doesn’t make any sense, why hating the homeless is immoral, why they don’t deserve it, how they are products of their environment. Still people will desperately cling to it. It makes me understand how racism occurs, I suppose, because it’s the same phenomena. “Ah, well, I understand all of the stats about racism, but this particular member of this particular racial minority, I still hate them personally for acting in line with the statistical average of their group.”. Insanity. It’s as though it’s all just abstract thought goop that has no bearing on anyone’s life, or that somehow I should be the exception to it.

I think it’s gotta be a functional adaptation, or something. Maybe they can prevent themselves from going insane and becoming nihilists if they just suddenly become individualists and objectivists as soon as it becomes convenient, or something. It is not that hard to conceive of a reality in which the person cutting you off in traffic is rushing to the hospital, or, a reality in which they, maybe naively but understandably want to enjoy their expensive car while they still can, or, maybe a reality in which they’re just panicking because they’re late to work or something.

I am an introvert, I am awkward, I hate hanging around people and talking to people. Even I can talk to the homeless when they need someone to talk to, and reluctantly give them money, and rides to places when they ask, since it would otherwise be like two hours and twelve dollars of travel, bus stops, a transfer station, travel, more bus stops, before they get across town to do a fairly basic errand. The social fabric is falling apart. Please be nice, it is not that hard, it costs very little, it happens infrequently, and very possibly if some of you extroverted assholes picked up some slack instead of making things harder for the most maligned, I could go back to my cave.

Mostly I find them annoying. I mildly understand the need for human meaning as it kind of, tends to come up later at night, or for the elderly, or when life really sucks or you tend to even just be really really bored right.

I also understand some of the benefits, right, like. As much as people will despise to admit it, you don’t get, say, the number zero without the Muslim science guys, and you don’t get science without the enlightenment which stemmed out of some weirdass Catholic Christian theory guys. and then everyone’s all like, oh no well you can’t attribute that to the Catholics and if anything they hampered progress, and I’d say, well, maybe, maybe, but also maybe science sucks as we commonly understand it and maybe also you can’t really divorce any part of things from their cultural context, or else things get fucky.

On the other hand I find them annoying and I find that all to be totally null and void because the vast majority of people are just using it as an opiate to placate literally all of their anxieties about the world with a bunch of meaningless thought terminating cliche style statements, and even actively reinforce their own participation in some of the worst aspects of their own culture and society even at points in which they really don’t want to or know that it’s horrible and is causing them pain.

So I dunno, mostly it sucks.

haven’t had much of an issue with that as long as I hide duplicates, require posts with images, and then click on the “owner” tab instead of the dealer tab, but I live in a pretty small city, so ymmv.