Looks like Neovim with some plugins. I am curious too though! OP, do you have macros/hotkeys setup for LaTeX in Neovim? I use it for coding, but when doing math I can't live without all the automatic stuff I get in TeXStudio.
I have also been thinking about it myself for a while. Although I do not have a clear answer, I do think it is helpful to realize that violence comes in many forms and is almost always present in at least one. Take, for example, the state's monopoly on violence, usually handled by the police. Whenever there is a differing opinion on how to handle something, one of the parties may ask: What if I just do the thing I want? If one foregoes compromise and dialogue, there is nothing but violence left as a tool to either push forward or back at a cause. Sometimes there may be legitimate reasons for not wanting to compromise on an issue. Sometimes the ones we see "engaging in violence" are those whose needs have been neglected due to their potential for violence deemed lower than those doing the neglect. Violence is a destructive tool that often have better alternatives. However this should not make us default to the position that there are always clear cut answers to who really started the cycle and that someone are morally faulty for engaging with it.
TL;DR the status quo is usually backed by threats of violence or actual violence. This makes it hard to judge who is at fault for violent actions at any given moment, i.e. it all depends on context.
Of course you both assume x =/= 0 though.
Why should the majority of people settle for the leftover scraps of the capitalist class? I do see that it is possible for UBI to exist within a system where the means of production is under public ownership and democratic control, which I believe is necessary for social justice. However, if UBI is ever implemented in a fundamentally capitalist society, it only means that the wealth disparity has grown so large that the capitalists, in the act of preserving their heads on their necks, allow for a crappy standard of living for the rest. Although I could see myself welcoming UBI for a multitude of reasons, I am also scared that it would entail some form of permanent class disparity with the majority of people forever impoverished.
Well put, friend!
It is sexism to make it out to be a "he said she said" situation when a man says it was okay for him to kiss a woman and she says it was something she did not want. You disregard her personal autonomy when you say that him claiming she wanted it is as valid as her stating she did not.
If I hit you in the face with my fist claiming you wanted it, should I get off the hook since as you deem "no one can tell whether you wanted me to do it or not"?
For anyone wondering the "soccer incident" refers to his bad take on Luis Rubiales kissing Jenni Hermoso without permission.
EDIT: Fix a typo
They can do either depending on what is most profitable. Usually they will try to do some scummy tax evasion maneuvers or cry on national television, but ultimately paying these taxes is of no issue to them in reality. The reason they do not want to part with stock, hence their crying, is because holding on to it is so damn profitable to them. They may even go to lengths of taking loans instead to pay taxes before selling ownership of stock.
They also get tax write offs whenever a stock decreases in value, so this is just sharing a small part of their spoils when times are good and business is booming. In exchange they get well functioning public services, a highly educated work force, stipends for starting companies and so on. In reality the top 0,1 % percentile pay less taxes than the bottom 10 % per capita as percentage of their income.
There are so many ways to avoid paying income taxes in a country. Perhaps the easiest is taking a loan with security in stock. Wealth tax and taxing stock in general is practiced in my country with great success (should be much higher still) and is in fact great for the economy: it forces people to invest or see their fortunes diminish. Your statement shows lack of knowledge and imagination that other systems than the one you preside in could exist.
I agree that they are missing a crucial motive for their actions, namely the cause of doing it for the environment. I still think my critique of the definition's statement of "violence against property" is valid. It seems to be included in the definition because they want to brand certain acts as terrorism, even though destruction of property is a label they could themselves hold as much as their opponents.
I think that is also why some so called eco-terrorists feel themselves justified in acting out "violence against property", since they may see it as an act of self defence against the originial portrayers of said "violence". Ultimately however, I think a distinction should be made between physical violence and destruction of material values. Whether the material value is an entity's legal property or not should also not matter in this case, in my opinion.
From your link on eco-terrorism:
Eco-terrorism is an act of violence which is committed in support of environmental causes, against people or property.[1][2]
Not sure that I count violence against property as valid. If destruction of material values are classified as violence and eco-terrorism, are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?
Yes, that is the one. Thanks!
Just to be certain, you have checked journalctl too?