onoira [they/them]

i think it would be more symbolic to extend the rainbow peace flag over it.

growing up, the most common ‘counterargument’ (read: dismission) to ‘global warming’ i heard was ‘great, i love summer!’

i had to become a singer before i had the lung capacity to sigh hard enough.

yeah.

that’s all i’ve got to say, but i have a strong urge to say it.

mine came with a battery defect and no longer turns on. i used it a total of four times.

postcovid prevents me from going to the library to print the RMA and then to the post office to actually ship the fucking thing, and i have no one to help me get rid of it. so now it’s a paperweight.

she’s alluding to the fact that these characters — the ‘soyjack’ and ‘gigachad’ — are historically, and still actively are, alt-right charicatures. together with their friends, ‘tradwife’ and ‘doomer (girl)’: they represent misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist tropes.

you mean the migration ‘crisis’ and collapse in ‘“living” standards’ which were brought on by US-EU neoliberalism driving down the standard of living in other parts of the world before coming home to roost?

there are certainly ways of reversing direction, but people in the core would sooner choose literal fascism before giving up their imperial lifestyle. they use the IMF to politically terraform ‘underdeveloped nations’ and export their own harms so they can say they’re ‘meeting climate goals’, and then complain about all the emissions and migrants coming from those countries which are ravaged to supply their hyperconsumption. the same migrants which predominantly staff their service, medical and technology sectors to prop up their precious treats and their oh-so superior ‘knowledge economies’.

voting for fascism is the individualistic choice which lets them keep their treats and means they don’t need to interact with their neighbours or advocate for real change. it’s easier to blame the victims of their actions than to cut the DARVO shit and accept responsibility.

at which point your profit becomes linked to the degree to which you provide the functionality

except when the commodity is a basic necessity and there’s no alternatives. ‘the market’ can’t really ‘vote with their wallet’ on the cost and quality of shelter, particularly when price fixing is rampant.

sidenote: ‘voting with your wallet’ implies people with more money than you should have more say in what’s ‘more valuable’, because the rich can always outbid you, and homo economicus is only a thought experiment. (see: foreign real estate investment, conspicuous consumption…)

it’s like you wrote:

providing a few predefined options for you […] instead of you having to find the words to explain how uncomfortable you are and what you want the solution to be.

i’m speaking from my experience with script change. it’s a low-friction, consistent way for anyone at the table to communicate both how they’re feeling and an explicit, specific resolution/action that is known to all players with the agreement that no one *needs* to get into details or explain themself. if something shockingly uncomfortable happens, it’s much easier to reflexively lift/tap a card, or type 2 – 3 characters in the chat, than it is to abrasively yell ‘stop!’ and then try to discuss it over.

i’ve seen cases where someone yelling to stop was interpreted to be IC. or that they were just ‘caught up in the moment’. (this is the reason for safewords; the cards are known to be meta/OOC.) or they didn’t completely know where a scene was going, but they had a suspicion, but they didn’t want to disappoint the group, and player safety wasn’t a part of the pregame discussion so they didn’t know how to express their discomfort and froze. the misunderstanding always only lasted some seconds, but it always lasted a few seconds too long for the person in discomfort. if it needs a discussion: ‘pause’ and take five to talk with the GM or another player privately.

in every group where player safety is discussed and safety tools are used: i’ve never seen a scene get far enough to make someone uncomfortable, and it rarely impacts the flow of the game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks

the same ‘literally nothing’ that currently stops us from ending starvation, poverty, homelessness, war…

people and ideology create the institutions which (re)produce and enforce a status quo. this is not inherently bad, and it would not be significantly different under any other ‘system’. we are all the state so long as we do nothing different.

Per the March All Hands discussion […]

i guess from experience that this was neither ‘all hands’ nor a ‘dicussion’. it was 'whoever[‘s logged in before office hours| doesn’t want to enjoy their lunch] gets to look at boomer memes and dull graphs for 2 hours while listening to the latest round of edicts graciously handed down by the Board.’

if you missed it, and you’re lucky, they recorded it. if you’re very lucky: you get an email with the slide deck and talking points for what could’ve just been an email to begin with.

what a harmful, elitist, high technocratic, economistic, no-true-scotsman take: someone who doesn’t view the world in pure quantitative terms and understand precisely a dialect of jargon has no valuable insight?

why ‘productivity’ specifically? why not GDP? or GPI? or SPI? or HDI? or HPI? or GBMI (Goodhart’s Bad Metric Index)?

you’re right that this character wouldn’t be part of a ‘solution’, under current conditions, because it would be formulated by a well-funded political thinktank, specialising in number-go-big policy, tacked to the end of a dredged report with absolutely no involvement from measly imperial subjects.

this assumes that:

1. all workers are ‘producing’ anything.
2. all workers are serving real needs.
3. the difference between supply and demand is really so low that any dip in ‘productivity’ would harm anything more than an executive’s RoI.
4. that the threat of this financial ‘harm’ necessitates more work.

with the increase in ‘productivity’ over the last century, if we reduced our expectations, and stopped letting monopoly money run our entire society, and stopped burning surplus resources because it’s ‘unsold’ or would drive down prices: we wouldn’t need to work even 20% what is expected of us now.

this assumes that:

1. dependence is inevitable if Europe is not the most competitive.
2. that economic competitiveness had anything to do with natural gas imports.
3. that our economic system and its basic dynamics are unchangeable.
4. that our needs are unchangeable.

the natural gas situation wouldn’t have been avoided if Europe were more ‘competitive’; neither would any other geopolitical situation. instead the EU should have — and is currently — diversifying its domestic energy sources. the EU could also work on energy coöperation and reducing energy usage.

interdependence works for everyone. independence is a destructive mindset.

no, it’s called information literacy and recognising insincerity. what you’re doing is called deflection and splitting.

believe it or not: one does not have to pick which colour empire they like best, because one does not have to like an empire at all. no one is forcing you to consume hypocritical fearbait.

Elaine Dezenski, senior director and head of the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in the U.S.

hmmm, i wonder if this ‘researcher’ for a warhawk and Israeli lobbying organisation is trustworthy!

FDD was founded shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001. In the initial documents filed for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, FDD’s stated mission was to “provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations”. Later documents described its mission as “to conduct research and provide education on international terrorism and related issues”.

‘the Center on Economic and Financial Power’ sounds like a ministry from Nineteen Eighty-Four.

i also find this quote amusing:

“Despite the problems for host countries and the large portfolio of failing loans for China, Beijing has still been successful at building influence across authoritarian-leaning regimes, who are eager to follow the Chinese model of single-party state control and high-tech domestic repression,” Dezenski says

the pot calling the kettle black. let me reword this:

“Despite the problems for host countries and the large portfolio of failing loans for the [United States|IMF], [Washington|Davos] has still been successful at building influence across authoritarian-leaning regimes, who are eager to follow the [American|Western|liberal] model of corporate state control and high-tech domestic repression,” someone says

what is so bleak about two people exercising their autonomy to choose when and how they die together?

but the things i want to do for myself aren’t economically viable.

and, no, ‘i work because i want to eat’ (or to X, or other CBT mind tricks) don’t work either — coercion doesn’t work on me, even when i want it to.