Even just as a technicality, the 1% have not always existed, most tribal societies did not have class divisions like that. Both anthropological studies of existing tribal societies show examples of that, and the archaeological record, too, lays out it was common.

And I understand feeling like that, but it is a pretty weak argument, tbh. It is even hard to engage with, because it’s basically starting at a completely different outset of concepts and understanding. Firstly, it reduces socialism to only systems of perfect equality of power - when even Marx acknowledged that this is not only impossible but also undesirable.

Then it just packs all kinds of class arrangements into “The 1%” and “the worker class”. Was European feudalism like that? Ancient palace economies? Tribal gift economies? Pre-historic tribal arrangements? The Incan/Andean planned economy? Each with their own complexities, class relations and all showing that the basic idea - humanity evolving along it’s material capabilities and necessities - hold true.

Lastly, related to the idea that proper socialism would mean perfect equality of power - sure, corruption in some way has probably always existed. People will also always murder each other in some way. Using that as an argument to say it is impossible to establish a system that minimises murders is how your reasoning sounds to me.

And the system is always what limits or enables the way this corruption and gaming the system plays out. How much property and/or power can be concentrated? Capitalism concentrates vastly more wealth and capital than the systems before it, both for good (e.g. the development of productive forces has enabled many things) and ill. Just because perfection may not be possible, does not mean a system without exchange of value and capital accumulation is impossible (has existed before for sure, yes, even for more complex economies than a small tribe), and it does not mean it has to exist in a way that is more barbarous than the current state of affairs.

That notional aspiration to socialism is basically the ideological smokescreen. It was much more effective in the Cold War era, but it condenses down to: “Suffer through our version of (state) capitalism and exploitative labour for our capital accumulation” - be it by state institutions or even state-sponsored billionaires - “and at the end of it, we promise, there will be communism.”

But that “communism” then tends to be like nuclear fusion - always 20 years away.

Personally, I handle it like this: Killing people is never right, but it isn’t always the best decision to do “the right” thing. The right thing, morally, would have been, to collectively not create a system that has CEOs and billionaires. Just like, the ideal revolution would only depose and take the power from the ruling classes and would have no need for terror. But it’s usually impossible to follow a completely ideal situation.

I think the distinction is important, mainly because the enjoyment of revenge for revenge’s sake and violence for violence’s sake is pretty real and can become very dangerous to the success of revolutionary action. So it is good to remind yourself of the ideal situation (no killing), as to curb any excesses if at all possible. It does not mean you cannot go against those ideals - in the end, ideals are trumped by material reality and its necessities.

Thanks, it did trigger a bit of a depressive phase, which I sort of expected, but I managed to get through that one.

Well, I recently lost, like, 50% of my credibility as an intellectual as I stopped smoking. So I guess I am now somewhere in between both ends.

Which I would classify as pretty weird, but not really unethical. Besides, I think the comparison doesn’t fully work - it’s more like, growing a lump on your body somewhere, having it removed, and saying “hey, can I eat that?”. Which I would also classify as weird, but not unethical.

Germany, don’t watch TV, have adblock on all devices - I guess I do still see advertisements on billboards when I go outside, but those are a bit different.

Interesting, I only very recently learned I have actually been autistic, finally explaining the weirdness of my past three decades+, so I am not knowledgeable about what language might be preferrable. Self-stimulating behaviour? I can only speak for myself that I actually do like the term, to me, it has a nice sound, one of those words that, to me, feels good to repeat aloud to myself.

This is a lot worse, IMO, at least wiping your ass is a good idea - douching is just an all-around bad idea outside of very special circumstances.

Aw, a lot more tame than I expected. But I guess I understand why I’ve never heard of it, I’ve never seen that brand before in my life.

As someone outside the US, and someone who hasn’t seen advertisements in a long, long time - outside of memes that make fun of the shittiest ones - what is this about? I am always curious about how ad culture evolves, and having a bear literally talking about his shit-encrusted ass, on television no less, would be a rather fascinating escalation of the more publicly shown ad-culture to take into account.

Yeah, I never understood it either. Either have an open relationship with consent, or communicate whatever needs you have that you want to fulfill by cheating properly, and accept that it may not work out if there is truly no way to meet them. I guess I can at least abstractly understand when it happens spur-of-the moment and under the influence of drugs/alcohol, but I still can’t properly put myself in those shoes.

Don’t fuck with mankind - one of your siblings sinks one measly ocean liner, and they will boil the planet and themselves just to eradicate every last one of you.

Yeah, blast it loud enough to drown out any other noises, tinnitus, thoughts, just music and stimming pls

That is a great way to explain the difference, saving that one for reference.

Materially, they were often launched into the upper middle class or even outright capitalists, that immediately gives them a bias. Add to that a disdain for social sciences and the humanities as subjects, that is unfortunately often found in STEM fields. On top of that, many are really addicted to the consumer cycle with gadgets and idolise the “geniuses” that “create” them, unlike proper nerds that won’t trust this generation of tech nearly as much and much rather create and tinker with stuff themselves.

Well, there seems to be !l4l@sh.itjust.works but it seems to be very much dead

You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you

Relatively speaking to the American quality of discourse, that’s almost a Marxist dialectical analysis.

Fuck yeah, many years of living in poverty have made me an exceptionally good cook when improvising with whatever I have left, as well as with canned and dried foodstuffs (that are cheap to buy in bulk and don’t expire easily). My time to be a valuable member of society is at hand!