If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Kim Kelly as in that retarded cunt that writes for metal sites?

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Kim Kelly as in that retarded cunt that writes for metal sites?

Yep. Kim Kelly as in the one that did press for Anal Cunt then tries to trap Dragonforce in an interview because of a joke band some of the members used to be in had racist lyrics. Also the same one that is constantly going on about how nobody should make a big deal that she's a woman into metal (not that anyone was in the first place) then interviews Liz Buckingham and only asks her what its like being a woman in metal. Her Twitter feed is pretty great when she doesn't set it to private. Major fascism fetish. She fucking dreams about it.

 

[CiG]

Fucking Kim Kelly writes for Teen Vogue

This article is pretty amusing:







So by definition anarchism is also inherently anticommunism? Funny how that contradiction in ideology is always left out.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

This article is pretty amusing:

View attachment 20793

View attachment 20794

View attachment 20795

So by definition anarchism is also inherently anticommunism? Funny how that contradiction in ideology is always left out.

There's a schism in communism between anti-statist anarcho-communism, which has its own variety of shapes and forms between Luddism and technophiles (from Emma Goldman to factions of today's Pirate parties), and statist communism, of which orthodox adherents are stalinists. These disagreements date back to the 19th century and Marx himself was caught up in such debates with the Fourierites and others.

 

[CiG]

Yeah I'm aware. Anarcho-communism is pure utopianism though, I don't think it has ever actually manifested itself, but statist-communism certainly has.

 

[Einherjar86]

This article is pretty amusing:

View attachment 20793

View attachment 20794

View attachment 20795

So by definition anarchism is also inherently anticommunism? Funny how that contradiction in ideology is always left out.

Marx was always notoriously vague about what would follow the revolution. If you want to trace the origins of the disagreements between anarchism and communism, read the exchanges between Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (if you haven't already). The two forms do find commonality in their resistance to bourgeois social order, but their proposals for dealing with hierarchy differ.

While graduate students are financially restricted, they do get access to university amenities (which usually includes a conveniently located exercise facility) at a minimum, and are cognitively and typically conscientiously gifted enough to find time to work on their health (although my experience is that there's some extremes at each end in this category of people).

But the city as such doesn't prevent one from going running. You talk as though an urban environment makes running unappealing. It's just a matter of finding a route and spaces conducive to physical activity.

NYC has Central Park and other public spaces, Boston has the Common, Houston has Memorial Park. These places don't charge admission, and if people want to see greenery they can run from their neighborhoods to the parks. If they live too far away to do that, then chances are they can already see green spaces.

The two photos you pasted below are snapshots of commercial and residential locations that by no means capture the fluidity and heterogeneity that cities offer.

Lower middle class persons might have time, but will they have the interest, finances, or general access? I know when I have worked at minimum wage jobs I could count on one hand the number of people I knew who discussed regular exercise. They go home and watch TV or go out to eat or maybe attend their kids extra curriculars. Of course, exercise and getting out in nature aren't necessarily the same thing, but in terms of access to do either in an urban environment there are many barriers, both material and mental (I'm physically tired from my job, exercise is for rich people, for white people, etc) for the indigent and working poor. At least in smaller towns, one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get a bit more nature in their field of view. For instance, I can stand in the middle of my street and turn in a circle and always have more trees than I can accurately count in my field of view, and I'm more or less in the middle of town, and there are whole neighborhoods like this. The only ones not like this are brand new exurb developments where they bulldoze everything and build a bunch of medium-large houses on small lots.

You can't tell me these different environments don't have different or have negligible effects on the psyche:

I'm sure they do have different effects, but I'm unwilling to say that the second two environments are de facto better for mental health than the first two. A lot of it depends on the person. The effects each environment has will differ from person to person, and there's nothing convincing (in my opinion) that suggests exposure to greenery is, on average, better for mental health.

 

[CiG]

Marx was always notoriously vague about what would follow the revolution. If you want to trace the origins of the disagreements between anarchism and communism, read the exchanges between Marx and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (if you haven't already). The two forms do find commonality in their resistance to bourgeois social order, but their proposals for dealing with hierarchy differ.

Yes I get it.

Just pointing out that if communism (or "orthodox Marxism") is for the oppression of capitalists and for a dictatorship of the proletariat, that should mean anarchism is inherently anti-communism because, according to the article, anarchism is opposed to oppression and anti-democratic ideologies.

 

[Einherjar86]

Wasn't trying to sound confrontational--I think you're right, if we're being specific and taking the terminology to task. I'm going to assume that Bray understands the distinctions between variants and simply elides them (either for sake of ease or obfuscation), but it's still true that his vocabulary leads to some apparent contradictions.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Back up with an explanation of what happened to the first video.

 

[CiG]

#JustWokeTwitterThings

 

[jimmy101]

Hahaha

 

[CiG]

It's like these fuckwits forget they're also white and implicate themselves in their bizarre theories.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I was disappointed to check her history and find that she wasn't Jewish, simply adopted into a black family apparently. Most of those fuckwits aren't white.

 

[CiG]

Wasn't trying to sound confrontational--I think you're right, if we're being specific and taking the terminology to task. I'm going to assume that Bray understands the distinctions between variants and simply elides them (either for sake of ease or obfuscation), but it's still true that his vocabulary leads to some apparent contradictions.

I think they elide them because these so-called anarchists (the entire AntiFa spectrum) are fellow travelers.

 

[CiG]

This is a dumpster fire.

 

[Dak]

But the city as such doesn't prevent one from going running. You talk as though an urban environment makes running unappealing. It's just a matter of finding a route and spaces conducive to physical activity.

NYC has Central Park and other public spaces, Boston has the Common, Houston has Memorial Park. These places don't charge admission, and if people want to see greenery they can run from their neighborhoods to the parks. If they live too far away to do that, then chances are they can already see green spaces.

Being a pedestrian is increasingly dangerous since the introduction of the smartphone. Running along and across busy urban streets is an issue even if one doesn't care about dodging other pedestrians, bikes, dogs, etc., or doesn't care about the scenery or lack thereof. I know when I was in DC, the Mall was a popular place for runners after business hours. Not only is that a bit of an exception in terms of the appeal of the area and the lack of road crossings, but many of those people also sleep in their offices.

As far as running to the parks: Probably for some. But are people in the slums running to the parks? Conversely, the people far enough away to have other greenery lose time they could use for running sitting in a subway, car, etc.

Really an aside, but Houston's Memorial Park isn't exactly a great inclusion. It has historically had a crime problem that's probably worse than Central Park's notoriety.

The two photos you pasted below are snapshots of commercial and residential locations that by no means capture the fluidity and heterogeneity that cities offer.

I'm sure they do have different effects, but I'm unwilling to say that the second two environments are de facto better for mental health than the first two. A lot of it depends on the person. The effects each environment has will differ from person to person, and there's nothing convincing (in my opinion) that suggests exposure to greenery is, on average, better for mental health.

I agree that there are people who will not be adversely affected mentally. I agree that there will be people who will not be adversely affected physically. I agree that there will even be a not insignificant overlap between both groups of people. I'm just arguing that that group is and will be small relative to the total population.

I'll likely be in a large city next year. I'll keep doing fine and finding the benefits (like hobby stores that are way better than what I have access to) and exercising etc. But there are tradeoffs for everything. I know you've commented recently on the graduate student aspect and have commented on it before on how I don't "claim" the status, or identify with it or something to that effect. It's true to some aspect but it's not unique to graduate students. I typically don't identify with most things I'm involved in because they aren't my identity, and I usually lack many commonalities with respective populations across the different things I'm engaged in. In talking about tradeoffs, this reality provides tradeoffs: it's a lonelier position to be in, but allows me to make more detached observations about the positives and negatives of whatever it is might be under discussion that I have first-hand knowledge of. This is often misinterpreted as a lack of "solidarity," because I don't share in the groupthink of whichever particular group is in question.

 

[Dak]

This isn't going to end well for anyone.

 

[Dak]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00528/full

Pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa) has been proposed for these individuals as a reversible treatment for postponing the pubertal development and attenuating psychological suffering. Recently, increased interest has been observed on the impact of this treatment on brain maturation, cognition and psychological performance.
.........................

During the follow-up, white matter fractional anisotropy did not increase, compared to normal male puberty effects on the brain. After 22 months of pubertal suppression, operational memory dropped 9 points and remained stable after 28 months of follow-up. The fundamental frequency of voice varied during the first year; however, it remained in the female range.

 

[Dak]

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/babe-net-aziz-ansari-date-rise-and-fall.html

Craziness.

 

[Dak]

In line with my assertion about the eventual flipping of rates of medical diseases from higher in rural to higher in urban areas:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

In high-density cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., no group is growing faster than rich college-educated whites without children, according to Census analysis by the economist Jed Kolko. By contrast, families with children older than 6 are in outright decline in these places. In the biggest picture, it turns out that America’s urban rebirth is missing a key element: births.
........
Today’s cities, however, are decidedly not for children, or for families who want children. As the sociologists Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark put it, they are “entertainment machines” for the young, rich, and mostly childless. And this development has crucial implications—not only for the future of American cities, but also for the future of the U.S. economy and American politics.
........
College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell.

Along with the death of the rural elderly - the absence of the urban young.

Edit:

For those young and middle-aged Americans who are having sex and having children, the smaller cities and suburbs might simply be a better place to live—and not just for the obvious reason that they’re more cost-friendly for the non-rich. Perhaps parents are clustering in suburbs today for the same reason that companies cluster in rich cities: Doing so is more efficient. Suburbs have more “schools, parks, stroller-friendly areas, restaurants with high chairs, babysitters, [and] large parking spaces for SUV’s,” wrote Conor Sen, an investor and columnist for Bloomberg. It’s akin to a division of labor: America’s rich cities specialize in the young, rich, and childless; America’s suburbs specialize in parents. The childless city may be inescapable.