FanonFan

I'd recommend reading a few historical class analyses and cross applying the method, rather than the conclusions, to the system you're examining. All sorts of factors can influence subclasses of people in various directions, and no abstract category is going to be monolithic. Mao's analysis of the classes in China from like 1926 is succinct and understandable

Who makes up the labor aristocracy, what are their material interests? Are they educated, and in what ways? What is their current economic trajectory, and how is their cultural narrative or mythology shaping their understanding of said trajectory?

I mean, a person's senses aren't supposed to be infallible, but I see no utility in elevating baseless conjecture above them. The "brain in a vat" problem is fun and all but it's based on zero positive evidence, just a lack of negative evidence. On the other hand the senses are giving us continuous and reproducible and interactible information about the world around us, which despite its inherent subjectivity can be communicated with other people's perspectives to approach and approximate an objective understanding of things.

Now when you start shifting from abstract to concrete epistemology, things like symbols and language games and power structures and ideology become important facets to examine. What filters and tensions are influencing a person's perspective? What mechanisms might be elevating or silencing their perspective socially?

We can and should be skeptical of our senses, but in a productive or dialectical manner, testing them against reality and other perspectives in efforts to approach a more concrete understanding.

Wherever they feel comfortable because I pocket carry 😎

For aiwb it kinda depends on your body shape, gun size, holster style, and fashion. But it's pretty common to have to design your wardrobe around carrying, e.g. sizing things up, going for stiffer fabric, looser shirts.

That's the reason I went with pocket carry in the end. Still have to start buying pants with bigger pockets tho which is itself annoying.

I was impressed by how streamlined and intuitive EndeavorOS (with Plasma) is out of the box when I threw it on a friend's computer. Will probably switch to it myself shortly.

Selfishness may have been selected for tens of millions of years ago in our evolution, but as pre-humans became social animals it's clear that selfless or other-centric thinking became strongly selected for as well. You otherwise couldn't have a species that's almost entirely other-dependent, throughout the whole life but especially for the first 10-15 years of it.

Humans can't sustainably exist outside of a society.

Not gonna read the article right now but this sounds like VC hype shit preying on bourgeois anxieties about undisciplined labor.

No sarcasm here. I'd never recommend people do anything illegal, especially on a public internet forum. Like I said, voting and baby steps are already good solutions to impending global catastrophe.

I'm glad most of these problems can be solved by small lifestyle choices, and that by consuming slightly differently as an individual, I can have faith that I'm personally preserving the world for future generations. And once people see the profoundly ethical consumption choices I make, they'll start to follow suit, and there'll be a massive ripple effect centered around my consumption that spreads across the whole world as people switch to paper bags and only eat meat three days a week. If people's choices were influenced by their material environment rather than the spread of ideas, we'd be forced to think of ways to change their material environment, which seems a lot harder than just changing people's minds.

I'm glad that most of this impact is caused by individuals and their consumption habits, because it's easy to convince people to consume differently. If these problems were disproportionately caused by corporations, governments, and militaries, then we'd have to change their minds, and they can't be simply talked into acting differently. There'd have to be some risk to their bottom line or material interests, perhaps some sort of immediate threat to the people in charge, which would be difficult for individuals like us to enact within the bounds of the law and pacifist social norms.

I'm glad most of us live in some form of democracy where we can vote for initiatives and people who will address these pressing issues. Voting is more important than ever because of this.

In a hypothetical world where this weren't the case (say elected representatives had shown a long track record of ignoring the demands of their constituents and brushing these kinds of problems under the rug, for instance) it would unfortunately be our ethical duty to take matters into our own hands with more radical action. Since politicians would value the profit of fossil fuel corporations more than our well-being and the world's future, we'd have to find some way for individuals to impact the bottom lines of these companies, possibly by drastically increasing the cost of doing business, perhaps by increasing the cost of maintaining their machinery somehow. But I'm glad I can just vote for people who can be trusted to use their state power to solve these problems peacefully and legally.

Mass murder considering how little control the people most effected by this have over it.

The recent Deprogram episode about climate change is interesting.

I love this meme on so many levels

She's taking a page out of Trudeau's climate plan