Means.tv has a weekly good news thing. Check it out!

Workers compete just as well unless they realise they are a class and choose solidarity.

Capitalists have an organisational advantage of beeing organizers in practice anyways though

Dewindowed

Imagine the letter H and G would look similar. Now imagine there was a language that didn’t have the letter H. People who spoke that language would post: “Hot Dog” and then go like “aaaahahaha imagine God Dog, like a god thats a dog”.

Now add the fact that germans know and use the word burger regularly and do posess knowledge of the existence of different languages and that “burger” is an english word, thus pronunciation differs.

So I’d say no, not funny.

Then again I have laughed about and made jokes that made use of the similarity of burger and Bürger. But I guess the “rofl different languages”-element needs to be combined with smth more to qualify as a joke.

Yours, german giving german answers

Lots of points for gryffindor

Accepting it is a choice with practical consequences. We should work on understanding what is to change and how and focus on doing it.

Making prophecies about what “Eventually” happens is self handicapping, wich does not help :)

We don’t exist as a whole, wich is the political challenge I would like people to focus on.

I think in post religious thinking it’s not about “deserve”

Edit (cant properly edit on jerboa rn) … your base argument is right.

Of course your base argument - capitalist economy is ecolocically destructive and dysfunctional regarding the needs of the many.

“Until there is noone left to fulfill their orders” thats the kind of “justice” i’m talking about. Like, Homoestasis will put them down in the end. Justice will be served. But that’s deceptive satisfaction.

Don’t go down the “natural balance” kind of revenge fantasy. It only makes one comfy in passivist boundedness. Also the guy in the picture is far more likely do do just fine in a climate catastrophy than you. Gaia nature god lady won’t bring you any justice, at all.

Fatalism is in that mix, too. A very easy way to meet political complexity

Whats going on ITT?

You fluffin find out where that insecurity comes from and help them build themselves up.

Constructive and empathic (self)critique is how transformation works

This is not how you strenghthen solidarity. In case anyone ever gave you warmth when you were struggling to be a nice person: ponder that situation :)

Haha yeah I was about to say, this is a masterpiece of

*newspaper jumping on the absolutely least significant aspect of smth, just, and really for no other fucking reason, because it activates low stakes unambiguous morals

*everyone: preaching low stakes morals

Wel played everyone, you’ve won the simulator. Turns out you do have a message, you do tell the truth

100k drones a month?!

This is a surprisingly hight number :o. Then again saying this already feels stupid since the answer is probaby just industrial warfare or smth.

Even though this is true for like 90% of my thinking (that I can see when I try), so far I’m concinced this ist because I am a predominantly language-and-normal-grammar-rules thinker.

There are people that mostly think via associations of words that don’t have to be formulated/ cast into grammar.

And then there supposedly people mainly thinking in pictures or smth, without words.

Anyways for some people rubber duck mode reoresents a change in thinking method, I think

If the 3 are associated, thus inclined to push their narrative it doesn’t change much that there are 3 of them, I’d say.

I only read the wiki article and it seems more plausible this (as most things?) was invented by countless little remixes.

Of course an “origin story” is also the more attractive narrative on the recieving side, since you know, people are used to and like stories with clear protagonists

So relatable

Seems rather like he didn’t invent it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiramisu

Okay I see we have radically different understandings of how political power dynamics work and what “free will” and “democratic societies” are. This difference is probably most condensed in the concept of subjectivity, which I tried to open up for investigation with the bunch of questions in my earlier comment.

I think we can’t solve this here and now, so I’m gonna leave it at what I think is central.

Individual political agency is always conditioned by ideological and praxeologically powerful structures.

In russia they are easy to see (you get killed). In “the west” they are more more subtle (people contrafactually imagine beeing independent subjects whereas they grow into disciplined subjectivity).

In both, the vast majority does not have the needed understanding of their political environment and themselfes in it, or the power to substabtially change it. The latter depend on the former and is out of reach, as long as subjectivity is imagined as individual, as they did in those ugly comments above.

I wanna emphasize I respect this conversation, you and our difference but its just too much conceptual material to handle here. I hope it doesnt appear arrogant to name the authors that seem to me the most cebtral to these concepts: they would be Foucault and Gramsci, in case you are motivated to get into it, wich I would freakin double tip my fedora for