The entire chain of comments is pretty funny but the finale was 👨🏻🍳🤌🏻😘
quarrk
joined 3 years ago
I dont know why tf so many of them feel so compelled to belittle others
Bullying often comes from insecurity. In the first place she believes (probably taught by parents) that unattractive people are unworthy and subhuman. Combine that with emotional abuse that undermines her self-esteem, and you get someone who desperately needs affirmation that they are part of the in-group and not one of the undesirables. Putting someone else down gives a momentary feeling of being above the undesirable group, therefore among the desirables, even though she knows deep-down that social acceptance can only come from others.
There are of course many degrees of determinism depending on the philosopher. In western philosophy (which includes Marx) I think it is accurate to contrast determinism with free will. Marx and Marxism are often accused of holding mechanical-deterministic views of history in which revolution is seen to be inevitable in a mechanical sense. This is plainly not the way in which Marx conceived of history, in fact it is exactly the opposite. For example, writings like his Theses on Feuerbach, especially Theses 1 and 3, in which he criticizes the deterministic views of the mechanical materialists which neglect the essential role of human activity (free will).
Leftists generally accept the systemic nature of social conditions. Individual circumstances are given, inherited from the past. Social problems like poverty cannot be reduced to mere individual choices.
On the other hand, the given-ness of our lives does not imply determinism and a lack of free will. Marxism depends on the existence of free will, for without free will there cannot be revolution and social change.
I agree that if someone asks for money, then it is valid for someone to use that money on “vices” just so they can feel human once in a while. I believe that money given freely should be spent freely.
I feel that in this comm, the requests tend to be specific. “I need money to buy some Chipotle” or “need a place to stay tonight” etc. Those requests do impart a responsibility on the recipient. Not an abstract “individual responsibility” that erases social conditions, but a direct personal responsibility to real Hexbear users who probably themselves do not have a lot of money to give.
To say that responsibility does not exist is to say that free will does not exist, that misusing the money was determined from birth and inevitable. I think this is ultimately a destructive view and does not actually help people long term.
Whether advice is helpful really depends on where it comes from; is it paternalistic, or does it contain an empathetic understanding of socially given circumstances?
I tend to agree with lifting the rule, but there would have to be moderation against comments that are paternalistic, and that will be a tough line to walk since it is such a gray area.
Took me a minute to realize you weren’t having a rant against literal overpriced fancy coffins
That’s a hilarious bit
Blue jeans are quintessentially American and also tone down the Ivy League look. You aren’t wrong but it comes across as self-aware to me, like “we can get our hands dirty but also clean up nice” like when a politician rolls up their sleeves lol
Accurate af
our sports fans
their obsessed boomers tithing their income on commodified team merchandise to cope with the alienated experience of labor under capitalism
The proportions are so weird, especially this rear-quarter angle. Looks like someone wearing jorts.
Is this from a movie
This one cracks me up every single time. I only recently found out it was a real tweet
This is one of the best features of the site
Perhaps my favorite painting. It’s in the Art Institute in Chicago
Sharing an essay from user Nodrada on Medium that I thought was an insightful Marxist perspective on gender. I am very curious what my trans/nonbinary friends think about this. I'm cisgender and still learning about these issues.
The gist of the essay is that certain forms of radical feminism are flawed and even damaging. The first, obvious form is the trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) whose flaws speak for itself. The second form is the "liberal" form, which takes gender as pure and absolute, an essence which merely needs expressing. What this second form leads to is hyper-personalized genders, in the last resort a unique gender for each individual, as each individual would have their own essence needing expressing. The author finds this to be an empty liberation, since the gender-sex contradiction is never resolved. (This has striking resemblance of Marx's critique of the anti-theists in the famous "opiate of the people" in the Critique of the Philosophy of Right.)
My take-away is that gender cannot simply be abolished outright as the TERFs would like, but neither is recognition of new identities in itself liberating. Of course recognition of new identities, e.g. pronouns, is a necessary step on the road toward actual liberation from gender, which has become an oppressive institution if it ever was anything but. "Being" trans is not an absolute condition, it is a mode of being in an absolute world which demands gender. (Sorry if this comes across as too edgy, happy to hear critique on that last thought.)
excerpt:
In both of these poles [individualists and TERFs], there is a certain identifiable episteme or common sense even in their direct contradictions. Both recognize the body as a primary site of dispute, of autonomy, and of liberation — whether in presentation, reproduction, labor, or sexual desire and pleasure. Both employ a certain authenticity rhetoric, with TERFs positing gender as an external institution as being inauthentic and gender individualists positing gender liberation as the realization of one’s internal, originary essence in an authentic gendered life.
In these stances, both tend to hold to a sex-gender distinction. On the one hand, we have the “objective” category of sex — objective in the sense of literally being present in the object of the body, and in the sense of the categories being assumed to be beyond social-historical influences. On the other hand, there is the “subjective” category of gender, which is understood as variable and a site of change, whether through historical social struggle or through a realization of one’s internal, subjective self-image of authenticity.
Both make a mechanical and dogmatic separation of the unmediated “objective” scientific categories, placed beyond the social in their formation even if recognized as the object of social dispute, and the “subjective” categories, which are rendered either static dichotomies or as pure determinations of the individual. Against this modern view, here we seek to advocate for a position which emphasizes not only the sociality and historicity of gender, but to reject the two-systems approach and emphasize that this extends not only to sex but to all categories. That is because all categories, every single one, are from the perspective of human beings, even as they organize real, concrete, objective things into systems of knowledge. There is no such thing as an unmediated, primary object for a living being.___
I don't know all the politics around this decision, but I was happy to see this news. The Grand Canyon is one of my favorite places in the world. It is constantly eyed for resource extraction (e.g. uranium), and this places one more protective hurdle. Choosing to take this as a good thing, and not analyze it as a cynical political move.
Now to fully solidify my 
moment, here are some vacation photos. 
11
Manhattan Project director General Leslie Groves Downplayed Effects of Radiation
(nsarchive.gwu.edu)