I mean yeah that makes sense - but I've personally not seen examples of prefigurative building that have rejected funding and resources from the old system on ideological "purity" grounds - quite often the reason is that established systems just refuse to funnel resources into alternative systems that don't generate a profit.
As an example - I was involved in a waste reduction/swap shop (food, clothing, furniture, etc) cooperative that due to it's well established social value was getting council and some governmental finding for over 10 years - everyone involved in it would see it as a prefigurative example of the future of society of fulfilled low carbon living. However, due to austerity cuts and a profit seeking landlord, who was asking for 10 grand a month in rent (which was over a third of how much the coop was making) once the council could no longer funnel money into the landowners pocket - the project was no longer viable and folded.
Now do you think the people that were involved didn't do everything in their power to keep the project running? Not in the slightest - it's just that the system is so hostile to such endeavors that they're constantly fighting an uphill battle where one slip is enough to send you all the way down.
So while I do agree that ideally we'd funnel resources from the old to the new - time and time again it's been proven that relying on the existing precarious system only results in building on weak foundations that will take you down with them when they inevitable collapse.
And I'm not saying this to dissuade you from pursuing a dual system theory - I'm genuinely trying to figure out a way where we can build the sorely needed infrastructure of the future in any way possible - in a climate that takes 15 years to approve a 50 square feet low traffic street to pedestrian area conversion in a time where we're 25 years away from unprecedented climate catastrophy.
Is your proposal then to reform the existing system into a new one? To use the existing levers of power to attempt to rip that power away from those that are currently pulling them?
Which I wouldn't mind if it worked - but the original reason for prefigurative action was because this approach didn't seem to achieve anything. But I guess you're arguing that maybe the environment is different now and therefore more susceptible to change?
How do you see everyday people participating in this political movement - voting? canvassing? running for office?
I guess you see Mamdani as such an example? Tho I doubt anarchists would reject him just on the grounds of him being a reformist and therefore not valuable to the cause, in my experience any push towards a more socialist society is generally embraced and not rejected no matter where it comes from.
đŻ
If you want to expand your political environment, teach activists or organizers how to cook. Teach them how to talk about relationship problems. Organize tea parties, raves, and mending clubs. Create spaces to unwind after work. Infiltrate churches, sports clubs, gyms, games clubs, online forums. Turn street protests into a space for networking: nobody is listening to your chants anyway.
This is like prefigurative social building 101 - and sure there's always going to be the "if you want to report abuse you should call the cops" type "anarchists" - but this whole post reads like terminally-online schizo-posting and not useful advice for people that are already out in the world as they say "touching grass"
This is not a wishy-washy hippie approach to politics. Itâs not the vapid appeal to community building of a New York artivist. Itâs not about feeling good and projecting a vague sense of emotional intelligence onto the politics we do. Itâs a sad, but necessary act. Sad because it adds to relationships an element of political motivation, and politics is always dirty. It is necessary because without a global-spanning web of social affordances, History wonât get back into motion.
Also in terms of practical advice this article sounds exactly like the "vapid" community building they're mocking. And while the hyper-violent "rivers of blood" framing may be useful for some - I thoroughly refuse the "sad" positioning as I'd much rather build toward happiness in the ideal of "If I canât dance, I donât want to be part of your revolution"
Idk it's an overall emotive text with imo like little substance that reads like "you believe in prefigurative action? that pales in comparison to my strategy - firebombing a Walmart" and then not firebombing a Walmart.
And don't pretend like master doesn't mean what it means.
Claiming that master
on github stems from master recordings is not only disingenuous but also incorrect.
As a FOSS alternative to BitKeeper, Git naturally reimplemented it's naming conventions as well - and because of the power of version control - we can actually check what the original meaning was derived from:
And yes I agree that GitHub just changing the name of the default branch while keeping their ICE contracts is performative as fuck - which imo means we should both boycott GitHub and use naming conventions that don't have a history related to one of the worst atrocities the global north has brought upon the world...
Wait this is actually real? I thought it was a hilarious sbubby but instead it's just a depressing slap in the face...
â â â â â
This was a gift for my dad who is an avid collector. His generation is so judgemental of us so this was perfect. So perfect in fact that my step sister gave it to him for Christmas too, which meant we got to open and play one of them. It was very satisfying to watch that old man come in last place at being a millennial! I asked him if a participation trophy would make him feel better. đ¤Ł
ha ha ha - you sure showed him đĽ˛
Like many kids, mine love to ask a million questions at bedtime. I'll answer the first three or four "but why?" questions, then I hand it over to AI. The computer system has relentless energy to answer questions from even the most persistent kid, and my children usually get tired out after a few minutes.
Nothing says paternal love more than handing a phone to your kids at bedtime so you don't have to interact with them
I'm sure the only thing his kids care about is amassing knawledge and not actually wanting to spend time with their non-AI (cringe) dad...
The amount of cope happening in that thread to convince themselves that cloud seeding caused the flood is off the charts...
@Grok could cloud seeding have caused the floods?
No, cloud seeding contributes 10-15% extra rain maximum
But @Grok couldn't that have been enough to push it over the threshold
No, this was 40 inches of rain brought by a massive tropical storm
But @Grok if it didn't do anything why did they stop cloud seeding before the storm if it doesn't contribute significantly
(At this point Grok gives up and a human replies) You don't need more water when you already have lots of water
Mfs will believe localised weather meddling can cause a flood but can't believe trillions of tons of CO2 can exacerbate natural disasters...
I can't believe that Grok is fighting the good fight in this case but by the looks of it they will only agree with it if it matches their existing belief system...
Weirdly enough they used to be 15% us state funded before USAID got cut back in Feb - so technically they're not even US funded anymore...
yeah that's fair - it seems like he was an IDF "Team Lead" for 2 years, 11 months according to his LinkedIn and mandatory conscription is two years and eight months (with some roles requiring an additional four months of service) for all conscripted men - so it does seem like he did the minimum and then spent 10 years in Israel and then moved to the UK
Just FYI Curve founder, ceo and part private owner Shachar Bialick currently living in London, was born in Tel Aviv and brought up in the settlement city of Ariel, in the occupied West Bank.
He also served for three years in the IDF which he thanks for giving him "grit and perseverance, which are clear factors for success in business."[1]
I believe nuanced discourse is very important - especially when it comes to children and their safety.
With that said I can't help but think this author despite (seemingly) in support of trans people - has written a fair few articles that go against trans inclusion and none for. Again that's fair and everyone is entitled to their opinion (even when written with the authority of a national paper)
What I find strange however, is the inherit contradictions of the authors overall position.
Let's take the OP article for example - it argues that blockers and hormones should not be prescribed to children unless there's a lengthy process to determine if that's the best course of action - which may or may not be valid. However, in another article the same author also argues "Every spot taken by someone with a male athletic advantage is an opportunity closed to a female rival." and again platforming "I have two little girls, I donât want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete" - which on their own seem sensible but when you put both positions together the argument becomes "kids shouldn't transition and adults that have gone through agab puberty shouldn't play competitive sports therefore trans people just shouldn't be in sports period" - which I feel is a much harder position to defend on it's own (something something motte and bailey)
I guess I'm saying that yes we should have nuanced discourse but maybe your best messengers for this discourse shouldn't also be saying âIn this climate, who would challenge someone with a beard exposing their penis in a womenâs changing room?â
He gave me his badge number. âIâm going to need more than that,â I said. âI have no reason to believe that any of what youâre saying is real.â
âI completely understand,â he said calmly. He told me to go to the FTC home page and look up the main phone number. âNow hang up the phone, and I will call you from that number right now.â I did as he said. The FTC number flashed on my screen, and I picked up.
âHow do I know youâre not just spoofing this?â I asked. âItâs a government number,â he said, almost indignant. âIt cannot be spoofed.â I wasnât sure if this was true and tried Googling it, but Michael was already onto his next point.
Yeah actually phoning the number would have been the best - I guess that's why they bombard you with instructions so you don't have much time to stop and think
The man on the phone knew my home address, my Social Security number, the names of my family members, and that my 2-year-old son was playing in our living room
idk - when somebody knows all your personal information, says they're monitoring you and is actively telling you that you and your family are in danger - being rational is very difficult - it may not seem that way in hindsight but everyone thinks only a moron falls for scams until you're the one that gets suckered
I read that self-laceration is typical; half of victims blame themselves for being gullible, and most experience serious anxiety, depression, or other stress-related health problems afterward. I heard about victim support groups. I went to therapy.
âEveryone was so patronizing,â she told me. âThe response was basically âItâs your fault that this happened.ââ
Also yeah blaming victims sure is helpful...
I quite like the one from the dysfunctional horse show: "It gets easier - but you gotta do it every day - that's the hard part" :))
omgg that's the exact saying my mom always says and it's so true! very cheesy but has really helped me when I've felt I've hit rock bottom!
meh I honestly kind of like it - I especially think the intersex symbol ties it together really well
US for all it's shitty things, is still, in my opinion, a far safer choice for world than the cool trio Russia, North Korea and Iran
As I said: "that's an easy position to hold when you're on the side with all the nukes..."
I'm just trying to warn you that defending such a system only leads to more contradictions, which require more violence to subdue, which in turn creates even more contradictions, which repeats until it collapses under it's own weight.
Fair, the whole point of attacking Iran was because of Europe having a diverging stance on Palestine than Israel so we agree on that - but now that Israel has bombed Iran - all of Europe is rallying behind them and the genocide in Gaza has fallen to the wayside.
Obviously I'm not saying that killing civilians (both scientists and casualties caught in the cross-fire on either side) is equivalent to the annihilation of a state. I'm saying that by manufacturing consent for the "war on terror" the G7 is exposing itself as the unfair political partner it has always been which only fuels more resentment on the side of BRICS, which will only further escalate the conflict until another full out war erupts (like what's happening in Ukraine)
So I'm arguing that we should discourage unprovoked attacks by allies of the G7 on the grounds that those are unproductive to peacekeeping.
And if you're claiming that "Everyone's in agreement about the fact that Iran should not have nukes." but "Blowing up nuclear sites and some scientists" is "hardly a war" - then you're either saying BRICS can do the same and should expect no repercussions or you're saying that they should expect repercussions and therefore attacks and escalations against the G7 are justified as well.
I feel we may not be understanding each other so I'll present my argument and you present yours?
My point is: The G7's hypocritical application of international law and use of violence and coercion to maintain dominance is exactly what drives countries to join BRICS as an alternative, making Western actions counterproductive to their own stated goals of democracy, peace and stability - which results in further conflict and loss of life across the globe.


http://archive.today/2025.01.04-231555/https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus254911212/China-Xis-nervoeser-Blick-auf-die-Bundestagswahl.html
> But even in the Far East it is known that the AfD and BSW will only indirectly influence Germany's future international positions. The SPD is seen as open to stronger economic relations, while the CDU and especially the Greens are seen as hostile. Interestingly, the Chinese party press describes the Greens as "ultra-right".