cacheson 🏴🔁🍊
- 9 Posts
- 60 Comments
2·8 days agoIt smells like Fed in here. ಠ_ಠ
Anarchists have a significant history of using “Propaganda of the Deed” and accomplishing fuck all with it. No shortage of examples among the history of the broader left, too. So yeah, I’m gonna have to call BS on this.
Violence is a tool, and there’s a time and place for it. Don’t be an idiot adventurist about it though.
This is probably a bit too reductive. Violence is sometimes necessary, but isn’t always the best strategy.
In general, the left should take an approach of nonviolent, disruptive agitation, combined with a willingness to use violence in self-defense. Arm up, protect each other, but don’t try to instigate a shooting war.
Reminds me of the Alt Right Playbook episode “You Go High, We Go Low”.
Those of you feeling disillusioned with democracy and its tendency to vote itself into autocracy might want to look into anarchism. I’m fond of mutualism in particular.
6·12 days agoI’m surprised no one has tried to give any dating advice here. OP, regardless of the virginity thing, do you want to find a romantic partner? It’s entirely reasonable to want both romance and sex.
Here’s what’s worked for me:
- Figure out what kind of person your ideal partner would be, what their interests are, and where they would hang out.
- Put yourself in places where you’re likely to meet that kind of person. For example, if you’re looking for someone that likes the outdoors and staying physically active, maybe look for a hiking group in your area.
- Be confident, and be chill. If you’re neither, fake it until you are.
That’s the basic outline. If you’re meeting people that are sort of like what you’re looking for, but not quite, that’s an indication that you’re on the right track and should keep at it. Dating is a grind and requires patience.
In terms of confidence/chill, that means:
- Assuming that someone you’re interested in could also be attracted to you, instead of just assuming they aren’t.
- Handling rejection gracefully.
- Not keeping your desires a secret, but also having the patience not to dump everything on them all at once. If you want to be sexual, be lightly flirty with them, and see if they respond in kind. If they do, then you can gradually escalate along those lines.
- Not requiring constant attention from them. Give them a chance to miss you. Don’t feel the need to respond to that text right away, for example. Wait 10 minutes or so, then respond. This lets them know that you don’t expect immediate responses, and they can get back to you later if they’re busy. It also slows the pace of conversation down, so that you don’t run out of things to talk about.
Oof ouch owie my skin
Huh, didn’t know that this was a thing. Sounds a little more permanent than I would want, though. I don’t want to stop being a mascboy (mascman?) entirely. Variety is nice though.
The problem is that I am very, very lazy.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!
…
It wasn’t me. I’m still hairy. q_q
5·17 days agoSome anime meme communities:
31·17 days agoAnd that’s true, but I think it’s important to note that Trump is a symptom, not the disease itself. The disease is his base, and the corruption of their belief in democracy. I hope I’m wrong, but I feel like we’ll see this level of politics for a while more.
It goes both ways, really. You’re right in that Trump couldn’t have gotten elected without the existence of that reactionary base. That’s always existed in American politics, though its strength has varied over time. However, his presence in politics energizes them, and inspires them to organize and spread their propaganda, while also serving as a powerful propaganda mouthpiece himself.
You’re also right that Trump’s exit from politics won’t calm things down right away. Hopefully his movement won’t find a new Fuhrer figure, though that’s always a possibility.
I’d been trying to promote gun ownership and training among left leaning folks since early 2016. Took various friends and Facebook randoms to the range and taught them to shoot. Have had motivation issues with that project for a while though.
Cheapest option is an assault 12 gauge.
I don’t think I’ve come across any “assault shotguns”, but maybe you’re referring to the “tactical” variants? They’ll typically come in black rather than wooden or camo pattern, have shorter barrels, and hold more ammo when compared with hunting shotguns.
It’s important to note that shotguns aren’t super beginner friendly, though they’re probably the most financially accessible option for home defense. One piece of advice I would give is to look up what “cheek weld” is when using a shotgun (in additional to general safety and usage info). We’re also pretty late in the game here for those that are worried about election-related violence, since developing marksmanship skills takes time. Better late than never though, just try to get at least one range trip in so that you can familiarize yourself with the basics.
Not looking to turn this into a guns thread, since that wouldn’t be very useful for the OP. If anyone has any questions on the subject, you could make a post in one of these communities, and I (and probably others) can give advice:
Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn’t have to be bloody.
Yeah, hopefully. If you’re effective enough at pushing for change though, those that are threatened by that change are likely to attack you with whatever resources they can muster, and you’ll need to successfully defend your movement. Landlords and big corporate shareholders aren’t going to be real keen on having their money spigot turned off.
I’ve often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.
Not having their camps bulldozed and all of their possessions confiscated and destroyed by the government every few months would definitely be an improvement for homeless folks. Being able to have a rigid structure with a locking door would be even better. But yeah, leaving it at that still isn’t ideal.
If we could bring wealth inequality down significantly, that would mean fewer people going homeless in the first place, and also society’s altruistic resources wouldn’t be stretched as thin. That might be enough to get everyone into better housing, at least out of safety hazard territory.
I call it mutualism.
The “still sounds like capitalism to me” part is the reason that I think it’s the most practical way forward. It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that’s used to capitalism.
Socialists, generally speaking, want people to have ownership of their homes and workplaces. State socialists (think USSR-style) want this to be indirect, with the state owning everything on the behalf of the workers. Anarchists and other libertarian varieties of socialist want people to have this ownership directly, without the state as an intermediary. It’s in this sense that mutualism is a form of socialism.
I included land in the absentee ownership prohibition because it’s important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission. Whether one thinks of it as part of capitalism or not, the threat of homelessness (since all land is already owned) is part of what enforces our current economic hierarchy.
Sure, let’s “regulate” capitalism by outlawing absentee ownership of land and capital.
I would say that wouldn’t be capitalism anymore, but you can call it what you want.
Doesn’t need to be perfect, just needs to be better.
“But hey guys, there’s this other kind of social order that was also bad!”
I mean, yes? Maybe we should try to build a society that minimizes the amount of work that needs to be done. In order to do that, we have to recognize that capitalists would fight against our efforts, because they profit off of our labor.
And yes, the rulers of a USSR-style authoritarian socialist society would also fight against that kind of change, so maybe let’s not go that route.
People will also say “benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government” without a hint of irony. ._.
When someone profits from your labor, it’s in their interests to make sure that you labor as much as possible.
In a politically and economically egalitarian society, not only do you need to work fewer hours to meet your basic needs, but society as a whole will be much more interested in “the asymptotic abolition of work”, through investment in automation technology and other means.
Under capitalism there is significant conflict over automation (see the current discourse over AI, for example), since the benefits go primarily to the capitalists, who are willing to let everyone else starve if they can get away with it.
Can’t argue with that.