Communism Will Win

This is a natural result of treating scientific terms such as “socialism” and “communism” as regular phrases

Hey! Don’t make fun of him, it’s a valid kink. Probably. With the context I have from this comment.

This post’s comments are an excellent example of irony poisoning. No offense intended, it’s just the site culture, not anyone’s fault.

I feel like subtly threatening well-meaning baby leftists is not a great long term plan

not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used.

That is what the writer’s strike is doing

Yeah but communism is a specific mode of production which is totally achievable. It’s not just a perfect society.

Communism isn’t a thing we can achieve

Er no

it is infuriating, but in a systemic way rather than an individual way

I think he hurt gay people and oversaw some antisemitic stuff but libs never talk about that because I guess that would imply that homophobia was bad

The other 10% only own their own house

people act like being a landlord involves repairing and doing maintenance on every aspect of every house they own and not just sitting around on their ass doing nothing like it actually is for 90% of those fuckers

technically true

Leaving them all to whinge and cry about having their “essential service” repossessed would be funny anyways

Wtf are you talking about

There is no material basis for any of this. Dualism is widely disagreed on by the kind of people who came up with evolution.

If you mean that human brain development stops and that people are incapable of having new emotions or new beliefs, this is blatantly and empirically untrue.

Not to mention that you can still have kids as far as like your 40s for both people with wombs and without, so the primary reason given (our species doesn’t need us to reproduce anymore after 19) is blatantly wrong. And why 18-19? Why not even younger than 16? Why not 21 because that’s when most people agree the brain stop’s developing? Aren’t there theories out there that the brain stops developing at like 25?

This just feels like a bunch of weird justifications for reproductive essentialist shit. Respectively, declaring the entirety of humanity beyond the age of 20 to be philosophical zombies is fucking wild and deeply misanthropic. Most workers are in their 20’s. How can you call yourself a leftist when you believe the entire working population has no consciousness or subjective experience?

Romantic love is when you want to have sex with someone

Platonic love is when you want to have sex with someone

Romantic love is also when you don’t want to have sex with someone

Platonic love is also when you don’t want to have sex with someone

Hope this helps

Respectfully, when looked up, most experts seem to estimate that people start deteriorating later than that. The earliest I could find was 25 years.

I am not disagreeing with your attempt to categorize everyone above 18-19 as old. That is definitely a subjective category and I can’t argue with that.

What I do disagree with is the idea that anyone above 19 is deteriorating, and on a much larger scale, that those who are old “might as well die”. What difference is there, really, between someone who’s cells are deteriorating and aren’t, except from a medical sense? If the cell deterioration is an inevitable event in anyone’s life, why does it’s start indicate that we might as well end our life, and not the beginning of our life in general? One could plausibly argue we begin to die the moment we are born.

For the wallet and pocketknife

I’m starting to believe not-voting is a reasonable strategy, but it requires large public support.

The point of democracy is that you’re supposed to withhold your vote when you don’t like a candidate, so the fact that there are no large groups purposely withholding their vote until better candidates present themselves is a concern in and of itself.

I don’t think that’s how Occam’s Razor works

It could be argued to be just as simple of an explanation that the entirety of humanity is a single entity with numerous consciousness, and consistent state. We know this could exist because we are a consciousness with state. It could even be argued that the entire world is one such entity.

But in that case, what difference is there between that entity and just… a physically realist view of reality? Practically none, at least not until we obtain the scientific know-how to hack the Godbrain

And what proof does Hoffman have for there being no such thing as a non-conscious entity? Surely such a claim is just as unprovable as stating there is. We are incapable of understanding the majority of reality, remember?

Where is Hoffman getting these ideas from? I Can buy the idea that we have an incomplete and possibly even entirely false perception of reality, but the rest of this is completely unfalsifiable.