Unintended may be somewhat true, in that nobody explicitly had that as a conscious reason, but it was an obvious result that they could’ve known beforehand. So I don’t think it’s useful at all to call it unintended. Just an easily understood and expected side effect

Libs and your obsession with whataboutism. This one isn’t even “whatabout,” the point is that the guy in this picture was fine, and in fact the army did everything in their power not to harm him.

In a complete opposite fashion, US drone operators gleefully shot random people and caused unbelievable harm to an entire region.

I proudly defend whataboutism when it’s used to exemplify the necessity of some tactic elsewhere or to compare similar cases for better understanding. But this isn’t even that

Now I’m not sure about making those 1 thing or relating them at all.

Max Ajl is famously at least hopeful about Degrowth but rails against half-earth socialism.

Degrowth has nothing to do with population, it claims that overconsumption for the purpose of profit (like single-use, non-repairable, non-renewable) all correlate much more strongly to destruction that population. Degrowthers often see humans living harmoniously with nature as the goal, and often in integrated ways.

Half earth socialism sees earth being split into 2 portions and “not touching” some and allowing others to have human activity. It misunderstands the issue at base and assigns a solution which will almost definitely require genocide of those who already live harmoniously with the environment in places that humans are forced out of.

I have also said many times that I’d love to volunteer my skills and knowledge to Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Loas, Ethiopia, or any other “non-luxurious” country which has been held back by imperialism. I just don’t necessarily think it’s the best way to help until we have a much more equal world. Bringing that about is priority even if it makes you feel like you’re not directly helping at the moment.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with something? Is this a critique of AES?

Oh shit, I really do believe it

I’d dig into you here but comrade @UlyssesT@hexbear.net managed to perfectly. You use the analogy because you believe in what the metaphor represents (that brains can be better analyzed at the level of neurons to understand what they are, while dumbass psychologists think you can get it from experiential analysis). The computers are always of course a metaphor, but you’re influenced deeply by the thought processes which arise from the simplification of human experience (or any living experience) to a mathematical basis which computers also use. There is no reason to believe this or take the analysis at that level as any more serious than experience (which we also can’t prove but I can feel something so I believe it)

Damn nice bit, I had to read 2 times before I decided it was a bit.

I think this is a very incorrect take. I don’t think neuroscience has been able to make a single claim against psychology yet, nor any real and predictable claims at all which place it above psychology in application or correctness. Psychology of course has problems, and I’m very open to discussions of issues with methods and shit. But don’t act like neuroscience has much of anything to say about it. They’re entirely tangential fields with one at the experiential level and the other at the technical/non-experience level. Common mistake of thinking you know too much from the meme

It’s a powerful weapon to use in a safe situation, but you also must keep it safe until that moment. Adds difficulty temporarily and then it’s an absolutely astonishing grenade. Throw it at a dragon with magic and watch it burn itself to death. Or be careful to not use any small magic (tough for puzzles and stuff) in order to have a super dangerous weapon.

Also you can just make up something that nullifies it that some enemy brings and it never works again after that, like the main enemy of the dungeon it was found in or so who had hoped to act as a trap to kill you with it (just like these characters probably did)

And even a majority is Muslim nations calling bullshit! I can’t say the majority of nations, because I am not sure of sources for this outside of UN votes

Meh, I disagree but this is too tangential from the rest of the thread for me to work too hard in a response. Not sure what you’re even arguing tbh, except that peaceful imperialism is different and America does that. I think all facts point to that being absolutely false, even if the violence is done quietly and in a normalized fashion. I also just disagree that Russia here is Imperialist with a big “I” (different from having a empire, which is confusing often). I also have no idea what this has to do with whether sanctions are succeeding or failing or not. My point is only that the failure of the sanctions and the results of capitalism are from the identical source which is capitalism and the logic of that extended through imperialism to international relations

the problems The West ™ is facing are mostly due to late stage capitalism rather than sanctions against Russia

Edit for effortpost: the fact that late stage capitalism and impotent sanctions coincide is no coincidence. I find LSC a poorly defined term, considering that imperialism seems NOT be considered in the term but only internal indications, but I digress. These two developments, one of corruption from capital and crises developing and the other of sanctions having no benefit and only seeing blowback, are dialectically intertwined. Sanctions could work if western imperialism hadn’t developed to an extent that all necessary labour can be done outside of the core for cheaper. But the efforts to maintain the standards of living and fight external pressure are resulting from the same process and the failures are inseparable also

Where can we apply? This application document has got to be fire

Not to pester too much, but georgism, philosophically, seems entirely based in an attempt to find some liberal justification for a broad solution to many problems. It attempts to find some legal method within the assumptions of the capitalist system (ownership as it exists in capitalism being key) to mitigate the problems that the original assumption creates. Capitalism will just react and reform to its benefit around those new mitigations systems like it always does. But the georgists ideas remain limited to the set of possibilities that capitalists have limited debate to.

Read some theory, it kinda sounds like you’re basing this entirely off of YouTube videos you’ve seen (including your understanding of socialism)

Landlords increase rent to make up for it, what does georgism do? Landlords don’t exist as such in socialism, but how they do exist still isn’t really impacted by this shift.

Georgism is a misunderstanding of the causes of issues at the “tax affecting productivity” level. That’s not the cause of our problems.

The lack of massive investment of housing and zoning are, again, results of a problem not the problem itself. These issues don’t exist with good planning, and that’s why georgism is just irrelevant except as a bandage for some of the ills of capitalism temporarily

Land is in common ownership + tax based on land distribution. What does this do? Georgism is only relevant to capitalism and is only a minor improvement to efficiency and distribution that will also just become calculated into costs within the C of the C+V equation from marx. It would only have a minor impact based on the size of your house+yard, nothing more. It’s in no way progressing us towards socialism. It could be useful for a NEP/current China situation of broadly capitalist relations controlled by a socialist state, I guess, and I’m open to that tax dominating, though it doesn’t really consider (or tries to theoretically consider but won’t ever be able to) imperialism/unequal exchange and extraction in other lands where the raw product is immediately exported to a country that will refine it.

Ah God, I was wondering (cheering for) when you’d make the turn to “politically only possible with a socialist government” or something along those lines, but now I see you’re one of the famed georgists. First I’ve seen in the wild!

I think you both present a great explanation for the hexbear method as well as simultaneously a tiny improvement: we can follow up the criticisms of the western countries with a quick “so the problems manifests deeper than youre saying”

I’m also fine with how we do it tbh, just trying to always improve when possible.