From each according to their corruption, to each according to their greed

Wait so all the justices recieved $3M in gifts, and $2.4M of that was to Thomas? That’s like 80% of the gifts.

Flameo, hotman

There aren’t comics afaik and, thankfully, the Jodorowsky monstrosity didn’t get made.

I mean, sure, but it’s half of a story. So much of the criticism I saw totally left out that it was part 1 of 2. I ask because it’d be like watching The Fellowship of the Ring and being upset that it was just a story about some midgets going on a hike - it’s a take you could only have if you weren’t at all familiar with the source material or even generally what it’s about. It’s not an invalid take, necessarily, but it is one that ignores that it’s only one part of a larger story. Dune Pt 1 was also a slower burn, and it’s totally valid to dislike that sort of movie.

I hope you watch the second one and can appreciate the first one as part of that context. Dune (the book, not just the movies) is very good for a lot of reasons and was incredibly influential on sci-fi as a whole. It’s obviously fine not to like it, of course, but as a lifelong fan, I just want everyone to give it a chance.

Edit: there are comics actually. Huh.

They were working on it long before the pandemic, so that’s invalid. But you read the book and believe that? Or did you not know what it was about beforehand?

That is a fair point. My only counterargument would be that due to the way cities are set up, a large portion of those emissions come from commuting. The reason people commute is they have to earn money to pay bills so they can feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads.

So, asking people to drive less could mean asking them to give up their employment, which could be much more than “giving up the comforts of their lives” like the OP suggested - again, it could really put their livelihoods in jeopardy. And, without an organized cause, clear goal, a call to action, and clear communication about why their specific sacrifices are necessary, people will not take such huge risks.

I’d argue that: 1) what is extreme changes over time, 2) a system of government being extreme de facto means it will have less support; the more support it has, the less extreme it is by definition, 3) the less support a system of government hass, the more force will be required to maintain it.

I am also under a system of government that is oppressive and monopolizes violence, but if the government had less popular support, I fully believe it would proportionally ramp up the oppression and violence. In fact, I’d argue that it’s currently happening in the US.

If we understand “Leftism” to be about a relationship to the means of production - namely one in which the workers/plroletarian class owns the means of production - then the USSR certainly was socialist/leftist to a significant degree.

Since leftism is about that relationship to the means of production, that also means that a government can be both Leftist and Authoritarian. We can discuss to what degree an ideal leftist government should be “authoritarian”, but that is less a conversation about the economic aspects of leftist political ideology and more about the political philosophy around personal freedoms, freedom of speech, etc. - none of which are completely cut & dry.

One could easily argue that some degree of “authoritarianism” is necessary to protect greater freedoms at the expense of lesser ones - that could be a coherent pro personal freedom and pro authoritarian argument. One could also argue that the anarchist conception of personal freedom is doomed to fail without an “authoritarian” power hierarchy to protect those freedoms. All I’m saying is the question of to what degree the power of the state should be limited is by no means answered.

The problem is: what does it mean to do that? Right now, we don’t have an organized revolution or movement. There needs to be a specific call to action. If you want people to “give up the comforts” of their lives, they need to know what doing that will accomplish, what the specific goal of the movement is, and how “giving up the comforts” will help to achieve it.

What you might actually be asking is for people to risk their jobs by going on general strike, their homes by not paying rent, etc. This is really more than “the comforts of their lives”, it is their ability to survive and feed their families.

The other problem is, any cause that only requires people to “give up the comforts of their lives” likely won’t be highly impactful. For instance, general strike and protest might help the climate crisis, but giving up plastic straws and driving less or whatever really won’t make much of a dent compared to the massive impacts of global capitalism.

Extremists? Sure - they are, by definition, as they are outside of normal, status quo political ideologies. Authoritarian? No of course not. Anarchists are anti-authoritarian. I’m only saying that past communist states (namely PRC and USSR) have been authoritarian and fascist states have also been authoritarian.

Obviously modern neoliberal states are also authoritarian, but the classic horseshoe is almost exclusively applied to fascism and communism. Since it is incoherent as a political theory, I’m sure you could apply it similarly to any polar opposite ideologies and come up with something they share in common.

Horseshoe theory is dumb, but it’s really just an observation of the loudest ideologies on the far left and far right, which both happen to be authoritarian. Authoritarianism becomes necessary as you move toward the extremes because you have to coerce some people/classes to accept the system. And it’s true that real-world instances of both Fascism and Communism have been authoritarian, and so they share some things in common. It isn’t a particularly nuanced or deep understanding, but it is true that authoritarian forms of gov’t are authoritarian. The difference lies in the details. Communists used authoritarianism against capitalists and the nobility, and fascists used it against minorities. Horseshoe theory conflates “authoritarianism” with extreme Left and Right-wing ideologies. This contrasts against anarchism (and by extension the broad anti fascist movement), of course, which is extremely anti-authoritarian (hence why horseshoe theory completely falls apart here).

Shai hulud!

Mainly just be properly equipped for the weather/terrain. Make sure to get a decent pair of hiking boots and break them in before your trip. Socks are important, too - need moisture wicking materials, so dont wear cotton socks. Don’t bring too much food and water - i.e. Don’t go overboard with it. 1 liter per person per hour is a good guideline. Be sure to actually drink it, too. Don’t want to be carrying all that water weight the whole hike. Hiking poles can be really useful for difficult terrain, but they also just improve your efficiency by taking some of the weight off your legs. Bring rain gear like FrogToggs if it’s likely to rain. You want to stay dry as much as you can.

If you’re in the US, the national parks are really great. State parks are also a good resource. If you can make a trip out west to Utah/Colorado, the parks there are great (maybe wait until Summer’s over to go to Utah, though). The northern parks are great too - Wyoming and Montana are really nice.

deleted by creator

The fuck is a “removed” removed?

Well yeah, him being in more debt means he is more for sale

He’s my little removed boy, Jack. After a long day, pop pop needs to take a load off, you know? So I sit right on his face and read the papers, Jack. He loves it! We keep that little removed all tied up and my aides bring him over when I need a sit-down. He begs pop pop to sit on his face and use him as a little removed chair.

T

oh my god he’s MEWING

Kind of like being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simulataneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag. But in a good way though - definitely give it a try