ALoafOfBread

Most folks in the south are good, honest, hard-working people - but the levels of propaganda aimed at keeping them ignorant and blaming minorities for systemic issues are hard to overstate. That coupled with a crumbling education system, poverty, and voter suppression is what keeps the south voting against the best interests of the majority of people.

The average Southern voter is just trying to do the right thing with the information they have access to. Doesn't make them any less wrong, but it does make the situation more morally complex.

It always makes me sad when I see people in Left spaces saying things like "it serves them right" etc etc when disasters occur. Sure, the majority of voters may have voted for policies that caused these things, but they are ignorant and have been lied to their whole lives. Not to mention all the folks who have been disenfranchised by the system.

Edit: for those responding: most. Most people. Like 40% of people don't vote. And another 25+% vote Dem. Of the remaining 30-35% that decide elections for Republicans, most of those are extremely misled, either thinking Dems are to blame for Rep policies that harm them, that Dem policies will make it impossible for them to make a living, etc. etc. A subset of those 30-35% are just outright evil and either want to throw everyone under the bus for a few tax breaks or are just rascists/bigots. But, that is not most people. Note, I don't lime the Democrats, but their policies are significantly less harmful than Rep policies. If you actually talk to people in the South, you would understand that. Some are out-and-out ghouls, but most people are miseducated, poor, and have been told who to blame by the powers that be.

So "remain silly" = build class consciousness & engage in direct action? Sweet.

Over 50%. Voter turnout is low & is higher among Republican voters (who are on average more able to vote due to economic and voter suppression factors). Not to mention that they aren't the ones who'd be deported.

I would hope that Canada would accept refugees persecuted by an oppressive dictatorship the same as any other country. Not only do I hope that, I'm pretty sure they would.

Idk about MMA, but afaik his kickboxing record was pretty good, but essentially he was an average/slightly above average pro who had a massively padded record - he mainly fought people who were ranked far lower than him, won some low to mid level titles and didn't take actual fair matchups or compete in tournaments that you'd expect actual highly ranked pros would compete in.

So, he was a perfectly adequate kickboxer and could beat a lot of pro kickboxers in lower divisions but nowhere near "best in the world" / "olympic level" or whatever else he claims

I think it's a refutation of unregulated production & resource distribution in general.

In socialism, distribution would be handled by the state or locality, by the producers themselves, by a work coupon system, with money (a la market socialism), or theoretically in a sort of free-for-all all where people just request what they need. Only the last one is really implicated in a tragedy of the commons type scenario, with the money and work coupon systems potentially causing a smaller degree of that sort of an issue (as there would be less inequality, so less possibility of overproduction due to demand). Producers would, in that case, be encouraged to produce more to fill the increased demand, but there wouldn't be a profit motive for doing so, and so a consumer-side tragedy of the commons is less likely. Also, producers' access to resources would theoretically be more tightly regulated than in capitalism, but that isn't necessarily the case.

In capitalism, distribution is dictated by the money system obviously and due the massive inequality there is a big disparity among people's buying power - but more importantly companies consume the vast majority of resources and are encouraged to grow infinitely in a world of finite resources - creating demand where it doesn't naturally exist to squeeze more profit out of folks' savings, make them take on debt, or cause them to deprioritize other purchases.

In capitalism, people are not encouraged to consume infinitely more because it is not possible. You only have so many needs and so much income as an individual. The market invents new needs with advertising and such (you need makeup, you need the newest smartphone with ten cameras, you need glasses that let facebook spy on you), but consumers' buying power is limited. People can't really cause a market-wide tragedy of the commons, only companies can because they have the vast majority of the access to resources and the ability and motive (profit motive) to acquire them.

Tragedy of the commons, or some iteration of it, seems inevitable under capitalism, but is mitigated or eliminated under socialism

~~Yeah, Lyme Disease can potentially cause that. It's weird they're saying "meat allergy" and not lyme disease, but lyme is pretty bad and can cause lifelong complications (post-treatment lyme disease syndrome)~~

Edit: guess I'm wrong

It's a pretty common occurrence for ADHD and Autistic folks. I'm a little bit autistic (Aspergers) and come from a family where literally everyone but me has ADHD, but I was always generally NT passing due to a lot of anxiety and really high levels of masking. I still am NT passing, but when I was informally diagnosed (by psychologists not psychiatrists) and agreed/identified with the label, I stopped masking as much. I don't know how much other people noticed (they probably didn't), but it was a big difference for me and allowed me to be more aware of the reasons behind some things that I feel and do - and to be able to forgive myself more for not being "normal".

I don't mask as much now, but I'm able to tell people things like "I'm sorry if what I said came off as me being angry or rude, I have a hard time monitoring the tone of my voice and I didn't mean to come off that way". So I have a better level of self-awareness and can still help other people understand my intentions & can communicate better without flat-out outing myself as autistic to other people.

Also though do please try to brush and floss regularly. Tooth pain/cavities/decay are no joke - you only get one set of those bad boys, gums don't grow back, and you can't really imagine how much it sucks to get nerve pain whenever you eat or drink things until it happens to you - then it's too late. (No shame, only F E A R )

Beast titan with alopecia lookin mf

.

Brutalist fast food restaurants? Don't threaten me with a good time. Fuckin love me some brutalism

It really depends, but ultimately a lot of social interactions can only happen between two people at once. Say you and your wife get into a fight. Instead of fighting it out & making up, she now has the option to stop fighting you and go hang out with your co-husband - and you aren't invited. She also has the option to emotionally strong arm you to get her way by not only stonewalling you/withholding affection, but also by threatening to push you out of your marriage for another guy who literally lives with you both. Conversely, she does the same thing to the other guy.

Basically, now all those 2-person social interactions that happen in a marriage become much more complicated due to the presence of a 3rd person.

You'd need to have a lot of trust in your wife (and this other guy too) - she'd need to have a tremendous amount of emotional stability and be non-manipulative. She'd suddenly have a lot more power in the relationship in a very inequitable way.

My wife and I are very into monogamy. But she has a serious temper and can be very manipulative when she's angry (she's gotten better about this, but it's a known issue). It'd be very easy for her to do something hurtful. I'm not talking about sex, just the emotional threat of turning to someone else for relief from me - and the implied threat of pushing me out.