Oof ouch owie my skin

Huh, didn’t know that this was a thing. Sounds a little more permanent than I would want, though. I don’t want to stop being a mascboy (mascman?) entirely. Variety is nice though.

The problem is that I am very, very lazy.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

…

It wasn’t me. I’m still hairy. q_q

Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn’t have to be bloody.

Yeah, hopefully. If you’re effective enough at pushing for change though, those that are threatened by that change are likely to attack you with whatever resources they can muster, and you’ll need to successfully defend your movement. Landlords and big corporate shareholders aren’t going to be real keen on having their money spigot turned off.

I’ve often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.

Not having their camps bulldozed and all of their possessions confiscated and destroyed by the government every few months would definitely be an improvement for homeless folks. Being able to have a rigid structure with a locking door would be even better. But yeah, leaving it at that still isn’t ideal.

If we could bring wealth inequality down significantly, that would mean fewer people going homeless in the first place, and also society’s altruistic resources wouldn’t be stretched as thin. That might be enough to get everyone into better housing, at least out of safety hazard territory.

I call it mutualism.

The “still sounds like capitalism to me” part is the reason that I think it’s the most practical way forward. It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that’s used to capitalism.

Socialists, generally speaking, want people to have ownership of their homes and workplaces. State socialists (think USSR-style) want this to be indirect, with the state owning everything on the behalf of the workers. Anarchists and other libertarian varieties of socialist want people to have this ownership directly, without the state as an intermediary. It’s in this sense that mutualism is a form of socialism.

I included land in the absentee ownership prohibition because it’s important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission. Whether one thinks of it as part of capitalism or not, the threat of homelessness (since all land is already owned) is part of what enforces our current economic hierarchy.

Sure, let’s “regulate” capitalism by outlawing absentee ownership of land and capital.

I would say that wouldn’t be capitalism anymore, but you can call it what you want.

Doesn’t need to be perfect, just needs to be better.

“But hey guys, there’s this other kind of social order that was also bad!”

I mean, yes? Maybe we should try to build a society that minimizes the amount of work that needs to be done. In order to do that, we have to recognize that capitalists would fight against our efforts, because they profit off of our labor.

And yes, the rulers of a USSR-style authoritarian socialist society would also fight against that kind of change, so maybe let’s not go that route.

People will also say “benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government” without a hint of irony. ._.

When someone profits from your labor, it’s in their interests to make sure that you labor as much as possible.

In a politically and economically egalitarian society, not only do you need to work fewer hours to meet your basic needs, but society as a whole will be much more interested in “the asymptotic abolition of work”, through investment in automation technology and other means.

Under capitalism there is significant conflict over automation (see the current discourse over AI, for example), since the benefits go primarily to the capitalists, who are willing to let everyone else starve if they can get away with it.

Even if you’re a die-hard capitalist, you shouldn’t use “tankie” as a broad label for anti-capitalists. Diluting it as a term just helps the actual tankies (authoritarian communists).

She’s going to college at MHI. 🥰

I miss 90’s techno-libertarian utopianism. A little naive in retrospect, but I’m holding out hope that it’ll still have some relevance going forward.

Ah, gotcha. Those are one-time passwords. Same acronym, so it’s easy to confuse them.

But yeah, I agree that everything should use (T)OTP for two-factor authentication, instead of SMS messages. The later mainly provides a false sense of security and presents only a minor hurdle for attackers to overcome.

One time pads or bust motherfuckers.

Not sure if you’re being facetious, but one time pads are for encryption, not authentication. They’re also impractical (and overkill) for most purposes.

:D

Oh man, I miss PFSC

Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted your usage of “last line of defense”?

These aren’t regular conservatives that we’re dealing with. MAGA is a fascist movement. The MO of fascists is to gain and hold power for their in-group by *any means necessary*. While it should never be our first option, we need to be willing and able to violently resist them, because they sure as hell don’t have any qualms about violently subjugating us.

Interesting, this is the first I’ve heard of the “reputation rehab” angle on the guy. Do you have any further reading you could link me to?

Rather than going full Inglorious Basterds, I think it’s important to have both “carrot” and “stick” options for these people. It doesn’t really do us any good if there’s no way to come back from having been involved in hate groups. Just make sure to keep the Richard Spencer treatment available, to provide them some motivation to get their heads right.