GarbageShoot [he/him]

in middle east i wish everyone involved regime change, situation is fucked with any of current people in power staying in power. Put Netanyahu, Assad, Erdogan, Khamenei and their cabinets and top people from Hezbollah in Hague then we can talk.

Great man theory doesn’t stop being great man theory if you add “and their cabinets” after.

At some point you need to engage with the problem of why things are the way they are, and the answer isn’t “The bad guy is in charge (and his cabinet)”

I appreciate your good humor since I think I came off as hostile

IMO the fact that fastfood jobs are considered temporary bootstrap jobs that you’re expected to be exploited to hell is bullshit and an indication of the absolutely broken moral compass of the corporate world. We could do without fast food, but that doesn’t mean we should pay them them minimum wage. Everyone deserves a livable wage no matter what they do.

I guess my perspective is that we’re talking about what OP wants to do in the present world, not what she could do in a hypothetical utopia (or just fairer society). So yeah, fast food jobs could be less terrible and should be, but at the moment they are absolutely not something to aspire to or even to recommend in many places because, again, they don’t even pay enough to live. Maybe OP is still living for free with a friend, in which case I guess it’s better than nothing, but in general it seems bad as a survival strategy.

Speaking for myself as someone who was dismissive, my best contribution to the answers here is that it’s reductionist to a seriously misleading extent. It seems like you have a couple of conditions contributing to your struggle, but it all gets reduced to “your number is too low.” As others have alluded to, how much of that is your adhd? How much is from some condition you may have that hasn’t been diagnosed because you have been unsupported throughout your life? I don’t think anyone is denying that you have real neurological conditions that hinder you, they just doubt low IQ as being a meaningful description of what you’re facing compared to something that gives a better causal explanation.

I’m sorry about how you were treated. That was fucked up and you didn’t deserve it.

I don’t think it’s over for you, it’ll just be difficult. You’re clearly able to overcome (presumably with effort and time) some of what you talk about since this is pretty well written.

Alcohol is pretty hazardous on all levels (I assume that’s what you cite as an addiction) but if you need pot to function, I see no problem with that besides it being another expense. It’s probably worth finding a support group in your area with respect to the alcoholism, though.

As far as I know, low IQ, insofar as we treat it as a credible concept at all, doesn’t correspond to not being able to do things, but it just taking longer to learn them. That’s probably not much of a consolation with respect to all that you’ve been through, but it’s relevant for looking forward because it means you don’t need to write things off as being something “for smarter people,” though there are definitely circumstances where the extra time it takes could make something not viable (like needing more time in college representing a significantly greater financial burden, possibly).

I think you can do it. Just remember that there is no shame in leaning on others; We’re a social, cooperative species.

If everyone was engineers and lawyers we’d have major problems keeping shops and fastfood open.

Alright, this is a little condescending. I think OP can aim a little higher than that and frankly probably will need to if she wants a living wage.

The fast food industry is basically a way for corporations to extract a pretty significant amount of labor value out of teenagers and the most desperate in society and all for the end result of contributing to society’s bad health. It’s not like society would collapse without it, unlike something like carpentry.

Lastly, insofar as IQ is a valid concept at all, studies say low IQ alone doesn’t prevent you from learning anything, it just makes it take longer to learn.

Edit: I apologize if it comes off like I’m going off on you, I just felt some things were worth noting. I like the rest of your comment.

I didn’t realize Mohammed bin Salman is part of KHamas.

I’m pretty sure it was because someone dropped bombs on American soil. In any case, the fact that it touched on the American aggrievement fetish does not put it on par with the other events listed.

Imperial Japan was obviously a fascist state that needed to be dismantled (and sadly wasn’t nearly as much as it should have been), but if we’re talking barbarism, Pearl Harbor was nothing compared to the other items listed. It was an air strike on a naval base, nothing was really exceptional about it except that it’s rare for someone to dare to attack the US.

The one is not the other

Arendt is one of the more overrated authors in America short of the founders, but she has a point about how, when you are removed from the brutal nature of the violence, you can just sort of shuffle it into your day-to-day activities. Sure, you can certify the paperwork, it’s just letters on a screen. Hell, you can even administer the needle, as it’s not your job to concern yourself with his innocence or guilt, it’s your job to use this specific set of injections to kill him in a visually benign way. Separating arbiters from brutalizing and brutalizers from arbitration makes the flagrant injustice much more palatable to both parties.

Frequently they blame ““communist”” politicians for letting the immigrants in

I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that “I’m trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin’ sucks,” your internal response would be “This person is trans, but doesn’t understand why they are trans.” [Or that it is likely that they don’t understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]

Is that a more fair representation of your view?

(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)

deleted by creator

We’re talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are “likely not trans”, that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren’t. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were “80% sure” that someone wasn’t trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren’t.

All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can’t access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the “Excuse you”.

You can’t tell in the movie but in the script, all his lines and stage directions are written in greentext.

This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.

That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.

What, did you see the recent thread they had on Hexbear? They keep making threads about us, it’s very flattering

(Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’re all stupid ass libs except for some who might be more reactionary than that)

Oh sure, Owen was mistaken from the outset because his genuinely more-efficient way of running things isn’t going to be as profitable to the owning class, meaning that no amount of advocacy can escape the gravitational pull of the profit motive dragging it down into the mire of human misery. I was just talking about what he did that ruined his career from a practical standpoint by drawing the ire of the bourgeoisie, which was not his company town model alone.

Sorry to spam you with nitpicks, but I do feel obliged to say that while Einstein was certainly a socialist and spoke very well of Lenin and even Stalin, I don’t think we have evidence of him having a specific and cultivated political ideology that fit a label like “Marxism.” I think he was more of a generic humanist who appreciated what his Marxist contemporaries were doing.

Incidentally, how did Marx borrow from Proudhon? I fully only know of Proudhon through Discourse about concerning material he wrote and that quote about, ironically, wishing for a future where he would be executed as a conservative.

I think that what fucked over Owen, according to Engels, was not his coops but his assessment that they were inadequate and more fundamental changes to society were required, concerning marriage, religion, and something else that I forget. For just the coops, he was celebrated in a way that isn’t even that different from the OP, because he didn’t really shatter the existing paradigm, but produce an extremely productive version of it that just happened to be relatively pro-social.