[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 10 points 5 months ago

I just hope they eventually cast some fully Britishized actor originally out of Hong Kong... one trained in certain things Hong Kong actors are known for. I want a kung fu Doctor. :p

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 16 points 6 months ago

This seems like a no-brainer to me... though it probably isn't. Obviously you have a constitutional right to sleep, wherever you can make space for yourself. If these cities and downs don't want people sleeping outside, they need to provide indoor space for people who haven't actually committed crimes. We treat our criminals better than we treat our homeless.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 11 points 9 months ago

All they have to do is, instead of calling it a "law", call it "militia regulation" instead. "Militia" is the entire arms bearing populace; if you own a gun, you are, by definition, part of the Militia. And the 2nd amendment doesn't merely say "everyone has a gun"; it does so in context of maintaining a "well regulated militia". All the right to "keep and bear arms" does is prevent them from requiring we store our arms in a central armory (which was one of the controversies over the matter in England when the right was in development).

I would say we also have a right to own a car. That doesn't prevent them from requiring we maintain the capacity to bear responsibility if we should accidentally exercise that right improperly.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 17 points 11 months ago

Because I played Dragon Quest and Zelda, I developed an unfortunate predilection for walking into strangers houses and smashing pots and vases and stuff. Took years of therapy to break that habit. :(

I still can't even look at a barrel.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 16 points 1 year ago

At first I was like, "Man, the Onion has gone downhill. These stories are supposed to sound both ridiculous and credible, not just ridiculous." Then I remembered that George Santos is a drag queen.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago

Mario games are all right, except for all the platform jumping.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 13 points 1 year ago

You don't need the biggest map ever to make a good game. You do, however, need the biggest map ever to make a good Elder Scrolls game. People referring to BG3 don't really understand the essence of the Elder Scrolls, a vision the series has pursued all the way back to Arena.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 29 points 1 year ago

"Income tax on their properties whether they're rented or not" is just a long way of saying "land value taxation".

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 27 points 1 year ago

If people really want to save the bees, they need to replace lawns with fields of wildflowers.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 45 points 1 year ago

The industry can't learn this lesson from their customers, because they didn't get the bad idea from their market. It's a society-wide trend, a symptom of a whole economy under the control of a narrow coproate elite that knows little to nothing about the industries they control or the products they produce. They contribute nothing to the productive process. They only work to streamline the parasitism that infests our society.

I have experienced this on the production end, as well. I used to work in pest control. For a brief period of my career, I was lucky enough to work for a midsized regional company, grown from a small family business, that was focused on solving actual customer problems. We did tons of one shot work. We did do quarterly and bimonthly service, but there was no particular pressure to subscribe, or to cajole customers who wanted to cancel service (because we'd successfully dealt with the problem) into continuing service.

Then the elderly couple that owned the company sold us to a global megaconglomerate (one of the "Big Three"). Over the course of a year, our focus changed. "Recurring revenue" was now the watchword, which is a tough fit in an inherently seasonal industry. And the reason they do this, in pest control, in game development, in every industry that can potentially produce any kind of surplus wealth, is because the owners ("investors") neither know nor care about any of the details of the industries they control. All they want is regular and ever-increasing revenues, in exchange for nothing at all. You can't even say it's in exchange for access to their savings, because though there is a little actual savings in the system, that's chump change compared to the ever growing wealthy elite that controls our society and devours our productivity.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 14 points 1 year ago

You might consider avoiding the situation entirely, at least while they're still too young to understand how to accommodate people. Was there some particular reason your outing needed to be in a space where supervision needed to be constantly immediate? Consider the park, a playground, somewhere w little rough and tumble is expected where you can withdraw into your mind a bit as necessary, where the only source of light is the sun, and sounds don't echo off walls and stuff. A nice open space where you can sit, and they can run.

[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 12 points 1 year ago

I think we're "supposed" to destroy ourselves for the sake of advancement for a few reasons:

  1. To preserve the myth of Western egalitarianism. Supposedly, we have a classless society. Anyone can make it if they just put in the effort. Mind you, this isn't true: plenty try and fail, and even those who succeed sacrifice their life to advance from one class to another. But we're supposed to believe that the only reason we don't have certain things is because we don't want it bad enough, and/or lack the discipline to succeed. The goal: get people to always look inward for the source of their suffering, and fail to recognize the very real economic parasitism that prospers at our expense.

  2. A manifestation of that old but persistent notion that to be righteous is to suffer. If you are happy, if you aren't suffering, you must be doing something wrong. Good food tastes bad. Good exercise hurts. Good work is miserable. To be good in spirit is to mortify the flesh. Put on your hair shirt, run five miles, drop and give me twenty, and then complete a twelve hour shift. Sleep is for the weak.

What offends people who take this advice more than anything is someone who hasn't lived this way, and yet is happy when they are not.

5
submitted 1 year ago by DaSaw@midwest.social to c/anarchism@lemmy.ml

I generally use "anarchist" to describe my political philosophy. I'm pretty sure I'm using it correctly, but I'm not certain. I haven't had much contact with other "anarchists", just a bit of exposure through history and such.

First off, to me, "anarchism" doesn't mean "no government". Rather it means "no intrinsic authority". What I see among historical anarchists is an opposition to practices that, frankly, aren't all that often practiced any more, in the political realm. I'm referring to rule by bloodline and such, nobility and royalty. I get the impression the early anarchists wanted to do away with royal governance, in favor of a federation of voluntary governments instituted at the local level. Which is to say, they believed in government; they just wanted to do away with imposed external authority.

But I do see our current economic relations as having a great deal of externally imposed authority in it... though going into my beliefs about why, and what could be done about it, would be beyond the scope of this essay.

To me, anarchism means the following:

  1. Favoring no unnecessary relationships of authority.

  2. Where authority is necessary, it should be granted by those over whom the authority is exercised, directly and individually, to the greatest extent practicable. So, for example, if we have an economic system that leaves both employers and employees with the same level of market power (we do not, but if we did), the employer-employee relationship would qualify, since it commences by choice of both parties, and can end by the choice of either party.

  3. Where this is impracticable, the authority in question should always be temporary, with a clearly delineated end. For example, the parent-child relationship is necessarily one of authority, since children lack the faculties to make all the decisions one needs to make. But this relationship should be premised on preparing the child to survive outside this relationship, and have a clear end point (the point of their majority). And I mainly include this but just for the parent-child relationship; I can't think of any others.

All this being said, I know there are those for whom Anarchism means "no government", usually detractors who don't actually understand the philosophy... or so I assume. Do I assume incorrectly? Is my use of the term wildly incorrect? I really don't know.

view more: next ›

DaSaw

joined 1 year ago