queermunist she/her

You talk about research, so I’m curious: has any nonviolent campaign succeeded without an accompanying violent campaign?

Corrections are how we reduce lingual entropy. Being corrected shouldn’t be embarrassing or shameful, we should welcome corrections so we can be better understood.

Language is collaborative, we’re always working to be better understood and to help each other be better understood.

If no one was ever corrected about anything, language will drift so badly we’d lose the ability to communicate. Try reading Olde English, before standardization people would just do whatever they wanted. It ranges from barely legible to gibberish.

It’s more effort than a straight read.

I didn’t correct anyone, by the way. I’m just a different person griping about how much it sucks to have to communicate with people who don’t care about being understood.

And you’re right, correcting people is even more work! So on top of the work of translating their stupid post we now have to tell them they were wrong so they don’t do this to us again. If they aren’t ever corrected they’ll just keep being wrong and we’ll have to keep translating their posts.

The alternative is to block them so we never see their posts ever again, which honestly is a better idea. It not like we’re missing out.

It’s frustrating to translate from what they said to what they mean. It’s more effort on my part and this is my free time, I don’t want to work.

Just communicate as clearly as you can.

That’s the history of memes.

So at first, people were making fun of a bad artist with a bad comic. In that context it wasn’t edgelord material, he was an adult and he can handle being the butt of a joke.

Then, the meme gained a life of its own (its context was itself) and that old context ceased to matter. It wasn’t about the artist anymore, but without context it still wasn’t edgelord material.

At no point was the joke edgy because the joke was never about miscarriage.

The context is that people recognize the meme. That’s basically it. The joke is itself.

But also I don’t really care if some artist is annoyed that his early, bad artwork became the butt of a joke. He was in his 20s when he started that comic, let’s not pretend like this is bullying a child’s comics or something.

Well, by now it’s just a self referential meme like all memes. The joke is itself, the context doesn’t even matter anymore.

It’s still not a joke about miscarriage.

You might have missed the joke?

The joke isn’t that miscarriage is funny. That’s edgelord material.

The joke is that B^Uckley is a hack writer and hack artist and his comics aren’t funny and look like shit. It’s making fun of him.

It’s obviously not the kids fault and we are punishing the wrong people. The parents are just doing something their parents probably did.

But parents shouldn’t give 10 year olds responsibility over 7 year olds, and I’m very firm in that belief. Even if it was on their own property. Kids get messed up by being forced to be responsible for other kids, and the other kids get messed up by having kids be responsible for them. It’s a toxic dynamic that’s baked into our society.

Kids shouldn’t raise kids, not even for a small walk to and from the corner store.

A 10 year old is not old enough to be responsible for a 7 year old, so no, they weren’t old enough to walk home together. The 10 year old walking by themselves would have been safe, adding a 7 year old made the situation unsafe.

The dirty secret of the capitalist nuclear family is kids are always raising kids while the parents are busy at work or doing housework or struggling to recover from work. It’s not really the parents’ fault.

Kids shouldn’t be raising kids.

Fuck cars, but 10 year old children shouldn’t have to be responsible for other children. They shouldn’t have any responsibilities yet.

You might be thinking of “IED”

Very different!

I’m saying WoD failed to stop drugs.

I’m saying evil pieces of shit like Nixon did not care about drugs. They don’t care about addiction, or overdoses, or any of that shit.

Do you think he was just a good boy trying his best to help people?

Why do you think he was the one the launch the war on drugs? Why him?

The wealthy don’t have money, because there are better investments

Their investments are still denominated in the currency, and by controlling the currency they trade in you can control their assets.

It’s always the richest people in society that push for austerity and cuts to government services and lower taxes. You think this is a coincidence? They very much do care about their money, even if they have properties and stocks and other instruments.

Listen to what Nixon, the guy who launched the war on drugs, said:

[Editors note: the removed word is the n word obviously] You start out in 1954 by saying, “removed, removed, removed.” By 1968 you can’t say “removed”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “removed, removed.”

You expect me to believe this racist piece of shit wasn’t just looking for a way to terrorize and imprison Black people? I’m supposed to believe that it was just a coincidence, or something that emerged later?

I can’t buy that. He knew what he was doing.

As to printing money, Zimbabwe had a lot of other problems besides printing too much money. It was a young post-colonial nation that was struggling to break away from dependency on the colonial metropoles, they had massive crop failure, and colonial banks wouldn’t lend them money. Their inflation has a lot of causes beyond just too much money printing.

Printing money just increases liquidity and velocity of money, it doesn’t actually increase the amount of wealth a society has. Canada wouldn’t become richer just because it printed more money, it would just be a redistribution of wealth.

But Canada is not Zimbabwe. It could certainly stand to print a little bit more money for the hospitals, and redistributing wealth to the hospitals would create economic value and actually benefit society. People living longer and healthier lives creates more demand for money, which in turn counters inflation.

Modern Monetary Theory.

This sounds like a way to get food poisoning.

The US empire is collapsing. I really doubt they actually want the empire to fall and for us to enter the Chinese century.

I start from TPOASIWID and then try to disprove it by methodically examining the system. Basically, it’s my Occam’s Razor.

The month tells you more about conditions like weather but that’s kinda it.

Yes, printing more money for hospitals would liquefy the whole economy into jello.

The value of money floats on the market - supply and demand.

On the supply side the government creates money when it funds programs and destroys money when it collects taxes. Importantly, taxes don’t fund programs. Programs are funded by fiat and taxes are a way to reduce the supply of money in the economy.

On the demand side, funding programs creates economic growth and taxes must be paid in the currency being printed. Printing money doesn’t create “national debt” or whatever, it creates jobs and investment and growth by funding essential services.

Taxation acts on both the supply and demand side of the problem. The way to control inflation is taxation, not austerity. Austerity, in fact, can make inflation worse because it shrinks the economy and reduces demand for dollars i.e. stagflation.

Printing money for the hospitals would be immensely positive. It would create economic growth by giving people longer and more productive lives (which means economic productivity), on top of employing more hospital staff and creating demand for more pharmaceuticals and equipment, which in turn creates jobs for pharmacists and equipment manufacturers, etc etc.

Someone lied to you when they told you we can’t afford to fund the hospitals.

Now, money doesn’t explain everything of course – perhaps there are some racially-linked diseases that are underfunded, and here “TPOASIWID” serves an explanation, but a rather bad one because it doesn’t actually explain anything. … “The purpose of the hospital is to have institutional racism” doesn’t make sense at all – it’s the purpose of institutional racism to infect the hospital, and the purpose of leftists to purge institutional racism.

The purpose of hospitals in Canada is to have institutional racism. That doesn’t mean that the concept of hospitals is racist and I think we can be a little more granular than defining all hospitals as racist.

It’s a brazen assertion that whoever is running the world is doing things exactly right and simply can’t fail.

Yet you do the opposite, you’re making the credulous assertion that whoever is running the hospitals is trying their best and they aren’t intentionally killing people. You do it again here:

But TPOASIWID just leads one to conspiracy theories: since the War on Drugs basically just got a lot of black people thrown in jail, then surely all those people who claim to hate drugs must actually just hate black people, and not drugs at all!

“Whoever is running this War on Drugs is simply doing their best to stop drugs and they aren’t intentionally filling the prisons with Black people. They certainly aren’t running drugs and guns for cartels to fund CIA off-the-books operations in Latin America!”

You’re very trusting of the people in charge and this is why TPOASIWID is so useful - it makes me skeptical of powerful people. At the very least it should be one of the ways you approach systems when you try to understand them, even if it isn’t the only one. I certainly don’t assume the people in charge are perfect and that everything is going Just As Planned!

Recognizing that religion had an important place in the historical development of society (culture, government, labor, ownership, law, family, etc) and that being religious has a material basis that exists outside of our own ability to choose our beliefs.

Atheism isn’t a choice. Theism isn’t a choice. They are just products of our material conditions.

So, I don’t try to convince anyone about atheism; I’m honestly somewhat jealous that religious people can still believe in anything.

I just don’t want to bother anyone. Being given permission to talk? For me, instant anxiety cure. I love actually knowing you want to hear what I have to say (or at least, you opened yourself up to it)