'Hierarchy, sexism and renunciation do not disappear with “democratic centralism,” a “revolutionary leadership,” a “workers’ state,” and a “planned economy.”

On the contrary, hierarchy, sexism, and renunciation function all the more effectively if centralism appears to be “democratic,” if leaders appear to be “revolutionaries,” if the state appears to belong to the “workers,” and if commodity production appears to be “planned.”

Insofar as the socialist project fails to note the very existence of these elements, much less their vicious role, the “revolution” itself becomes a facade for counterrevolution.

Marx’s vision notwithstanding, what tends to “wither away” after this kind of “revolution” is not the state but the very consciousness of domination.'

— Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism

HOLD ON

Going Armchair philospher mode

Been thinking a lot today about whether or not knowledge is a moral imperative or, in english, whether or not you have to acquire knowledge to be moral. The conclusion I came to? Well, it depends on your moral framework. If you're coming from a more liberal-minded, egalitarian mindset, then yes, absolutely. If you believe it's your moral duty to make the world better for others, then you MUST learn about the experiences of others in order to better them. If you don't believe in that sort of thing, than it isn't necessarily a need to learn more.

I think this explains, in a way, why conservatives in the modern era seem to be okay with suppressing knowledge, particularly of other viewpoints. If your moral standpoint is not one of "I want people to be better" and is rather one of (admittedly, in a flawed, often self-contradicting way) "I think people are generally better off fending for themselves" then you don't really NEED other people's experiences or perspectives, self-knowledge is enough.

Anyway, I know this argument has some flaws and that the phil majors among ye will eat me alive over it, but that's at least the concept, as far as it's bounced around my mind tonight.

As someone who lives in the wooded mountains of Virginia, I will say yes, we should be eating more of these. They're tasty and fun to look for!

Look I get it. Israeli politics, militarism and colonialism are atrocious. But do you all really think Hamas' current tactics support the freedom and independence of anyone? You don't have to see every conflict in black and white, side-picking terms you know, both parties are killing innocents. Hamas isn't a group you want to defend.

However, just so we don't forget

“We are putting a complete siege on Gaza … No electricity, no food, no water, no gas – it’s all closed”
-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, announcing starvation tactics in Gaza in response to the attacks

Legitimate question: Why would somebody want an suv? It really seems like minivans have all of the same advantages someone would want from one, and then some

WAIT, I forgot about awd, nvm. But also, it seems like there are a lot of 100% better cars that also have that feature, why not get something that doesn't waste obscene amounts of gas and is safer too?

Some psychologists consider socializing children with adults is the healthiest thing you can do for them. separating life into "kid" and "adult" actually tends to stunt a child's emotional and social development, and it's usually in a child's best interest to be allowed into the conversations of adults, and to be treated with the same integrity.