ReadFanon

joined 2 years ago
[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago

Throwback to when he was touting the "plan" to push Biden left.

It's a massive self-report that Vaushites will accuse you of doing no real-world organising because it's 100% projection; if you ask them whatever happened to pushing Biden left, where you can learn about Vaush's strategy to do this, and how his followers went about achieving this plan, they inevitably get infuriated by the questions.

These people, who will accuse you of ableism if you tell them to read theory, are very comfortable demanding that you account for how much real-world organising you've done without a single consideration for the fact that theory is much more accessible than irl organising is for most people with disability.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why did the anarchist drop out of their post-graduate degree?No gods, no masters!

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I know what you're saying here but the king is absolutely a part of the Australian government and this is cheap equivocation on behalf of the Australian prime minister who should know very well that Australia is a not a republic.

You can't be the head of state for a constitutional monarchy and claim that the monarch isn't a part of the government.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

i stupidly took another this morning, i've heard that there can be really bad symptoms from stopping medication like this suddenly so i just took another but i'm already regretting that decision

You're not stupid, you're doing what you've been advised to do by medical professionals. I'm guessing they didn't tell you what to do if you have a serious negative reaction to the meds because they almost never do this. So you're just doing your best with info and circumstances that are far less than ideal.

If you're keeping it together then you will probably be able to taper down on the meds over the coming few days or a week, give or take. A pharmacist or doctor should be able to give you better advice on this.

The bupropion manufacturer claims that there are minimal side effects if you stop cold turkey and that you don't need to taper down. I don't believe that to be true but there doesn't appear to be any major concerns with tapering down fairly quickly.

If you're doing an emergency taper, my general advice is to drop the dose by half each day until you're at the point where you're down to a quarter of a pill or if you're noticing that you're getting bad withdrawals, at which point you can either go back up on the dose somewhat or you can plateau for a couple of doses before you continue tapering down.

If you're on a high dose or you've been on antidepressants for a long period then it's almost certainly going to need a more gentle taper, but you're probably on a fairly low dose and you haven't been on them for long so that's unlikely to be a concern.

With regards to escitalopram, that can be harder to withdraw from. I went cold turkey from a high dose due to necessity. Wouldn't recommend unless it's urgent. You might need a more gradual taper with this one but tbh it really hasn't been long enough to warrant this unless you're a very rare case.

My guess is that it's probably the bupropion that's causing you trouble. My hunch then is that tapering down on the escitalopram more gradually should be fine if the bupropion is the cause.

Glad to hear that this isn't going to really screw up your plans for the next week or two.

General advice moving forward with meds:

Go one at a time in future and if your prescribing doctor tries starting you on two meds at the same time, tell them that you aren't willing to do that again.

You could ask the prescribing doctor if you can try going back on one first to see your response, then trying the other later to see which one is the cause of the problems. Though if you're done with taking these meds and you're not interested in trying them again, that's understandable.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Not a government decision?

Help me understand where I'm getting confused here.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah but if this happened under Trump they would have signed this motion pressing down harder on their pens and Trump would have said something mean and/or ridiculous on TV, so we can't get distracted by this because we need to vote for 99.999% Hitler instead of 100% Hitler, okay?

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago

I don't think this can be measured in a vacuum.

Let's explore some different cases as a thought experiment:

A country achieves communism. I don't think this is possible tbh but let's go with it.

We can expect to see the "proles" consuming more than they would otherwise as they'd have all the products of their labour.

Let's presume that people are people and that they aren't going to suddenly develop much more class consciousness and a spirit of internationalism. Obviously I think that a communist society would go a long way towards this but let's ignore that for argument's sake.

Unequal exchange would mean that the communist society would be taking advantage of this arrangement, perhaps more than they would be able to otherwise.

But if this is the situation, we also have no bourgeoisie who do rampant exploitation of the third world. We have no more corporations. We have no more bourgeois democracy inflicting imperialism upon the world.

Perhaps consumption drops a whole lot purely by virtue of the fact that people would rather work 4 hours a day or 3 days a week. Perhaps in freeing up the products of labour and what would otherwise be capital and surplus value under the previous system, people are able to manufacture and acquire products designed for repairing with replaceable parts rather than for planned obsolescence. Perhaps people would be able to be more conscious consumers, opting for the things that have a lower environmental and social impact rather than working two jobs as part of a single-parent nuclear(ish) family and only being able to choose the simplest and most readily available options rather than carefully considering what they would genuinely prefer. Perhaps lots of people devote their time to things like gardening and producing food themselves because they only need to work 15 hours a week in their factory job to cover the rest of their needs.

It's hard to estimate what it would look like exactly, especially in an unbiased way, but even in a conservative estimate I'd say that it would be a net-benefit for the third world as the degree of exploitation and the worst excesses of consumption would be largely curbed, not to mention all of the excesses of capitalism and imperialism being eliminated (from that society anyway).

So let's look at a genuinely SocDem society next:

Imperialism is dead in the water. Capitalism is hemmed in. Billionaires are reduced to having no more than, say $10 million in net worth. If corporations still exist they are brought to heel and they are held accountable for their inevitable excesses.

Honestly in this society I would expect the net benefit to the third world to be worse than the example above but it would still be much better than what we have today.

Next is to consider things as they are today:

Increased wages are going to lead to increased consumption. But things like earlier retirement and better healthcare, education, environmental and workplace safety etc. are going to reduce the impacts on the third world - healthcare, especially stuff that is way downstream, has a big footprint. Workplace and public health and safety makes things better for everyone. Carving out chunks of profit to go towards better conditions generally means less money for wars and less money going towards imperialism, not always but more so than not. Workers having unions and solidarity means that there's more chance of things like general strikes, which can achieve good outcomes for the third world.

I think under this scenario we could expect to see a net benefit that is significantly reduced compared to a SocDem hypothetical scenario. It might even come out as a wash, if you really want to make a conservative estimate.

Idk this argument seems overly simplistic and very undialectical honestly. It's a bit like the reactionaries who complain about veganism or measures that benefit the environment and they charge vegans with being responsible for the deaths of animals due to industrialised agriculture or they concern-troll over the carbon footprint of a proposed expansion to rail transport.

I mean, yeah, there's definitely an environmental footprint that gets incurred when you manufacture a car seatbelt and that's fine. But if 100,000 seatbelts prevent one single person from becoming a permanent wheelchair user then the comparative environmental footprint is vastly in favour of making those 100,000 seatbelts because the environmental footprint incurred by the necessary medical and accessibility interventions from one preventable case of someone ending up as a permanent wheelchair user are far greater.

This is not an argument in favour of eugenics or to lay the blame for the social and environmental impacts of being disabled at the feet of the individual though. I'm just trying to highlight that we should not fall victim to an overly reductionist assessment of things in a very static way or otherwise we end up with well-intentioned measures that can have ramifications that are far worse than what we prevent.

Likewise we should not oppose fighting for better working conditions in the first world out of concern that any improvements here are simply going to make things worse in the third world because it's not nearly as simple an arrangement as one where improvements here necessarily make things worse over there in equal measure.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sorry to hear that you're having a negative reaction to the meds.

Aside from contacting people, I would recommend creating a calm environment in your room and riding this out.

Put on some relaxing music, spend some time doing the minimum amount of stuff that you are able to. If you can sit and relax, cool. If you feel like you can't contain the energy and you need to keep busy that's okay too - don't force yourself to do nothing if that feels like torture but maybe play a video game or do some drawing or anything else. Peel some labels off off cans and bottles if it feels good and it's something that you can direct your energy towards.

If this is your first day taking the meds then I'd recommend not taking another dose tomorrow. If your doctor tells you to push through the side effects, you don't have to take their advice and you are within your rights to advocate for yourself and to say no.

Try not to worry about sleep too much right now - it will come in due time. If you're awake for 24 hours+ and you're still feeling wired then I would recommend seeking medical advice - your prescribing doctor, your pharmacist, a medical helpline etc.

If you are feeling really bad and you or the people around you are seriously concerned, seek medical advice sooner or go to the emergency department.

I would cancel any upcoming committments for the next couple of days so you can rest and recover without pushing yourself. There are very few things that cannot wait and right now the most important thing is getting you back to normal.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Ah fuck it, you hate to hear it. Definitely sounds like a Wellbutrin thing.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

So the Democrat strategy of "I've already moved my stuff here so I might as well keep this spot" isn't viable?? Who could have seen that coming?

Biden's campaign is in tatters.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 18 points 2 years ago

Quick questions for them:

What has Biden actually done to protect trans people through legislation?

Do they believe that international law needs to be upheld?

Do they think that it's okay to be complicit in genocide?

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 20 points 2 years ago

Interesting that it comes up on a Bernie tweet but not a Hillary tweet, eh? Almost as if AOC knows which side her bread is buttered on.

 

Truly the US is the greatest country in the world and we are blessed to live in a rules-based order

 

Posting this here because idk where else to post it. For legal reasons, I'm not sure what Palestinian song this happens to be a mashup of but it's weird that they mention the name George in the lyrics - what kind of a Palestinian name is George anyway? I can't think of a single Palestinian named George lol.

Anyway this song no longer exists on the internet since the original creator removed it post-October 7th. I thought I'd put it somewhere for posterity before it vanishes from the internet forever cos it's already an endangered file. Enjoy!

🟥🎏🔝

 

I'm just venting, it's not a big deal and it's nothing that needs fixing.

I take a conciliatory approach to engaging people, except when someone is completely out of line in which case I match their tone and rhetoric because shutting them up is of more use than a discussion could ever be. I don't appreciate the online slapfight culture and I think it's pretty toxic and it just causes people to double down in their position.

I don't bother with teaching people way to refine their arguments if their politics are in direction opposition to my own but if I get rh impression that someone is having a discussion with me in good faith about a topic we disagree with, I will often explain to them where my argument is heading, where I see their argument heading, and how the chips will fall. Not in a way like I'm trying to say that I already know everything and this is exactly how it's going to play out but more like the fact that I've been through this discussion before and we can cut to the chase if they are willing to level with me sorta thing (it probably doesn't come off that way but oh well.)

So recently I came across someone who I figure is either a baby leftist or more likely a progressive lib saying that fascism is when corporate power merges with the government or whatever. This was on an actual discussion about fascism btw.

I'm sure that most of you have already had this same discussion that I was about to dive into with this person. I find it to be tiring.

If you don't know the discussion basically it's this:

  • People quote Mussolini as saying that

  • The quote has never been sourced

  • Mussolini only ever discussed corporatism, not corporatocracy and he details this system in writings like The Doctrine of Fascism

  • While Mussolini coined the term fascism, he is not the only voice on the subject and just because he may have used a particular definition doesn't mean that we are all bound to sticking to his definition

  • The Wikipedia entry on corporatism used to have a disclaimer about distinguishing the term from corporatocracy but I think they've updated it to being the entire first paragraph because lay people keep on conflating the two

  • Corporatism is a system of structuring the political and economic spheres in such a way that people are grouped according to their profession or their interest group (but usually profession) into guilds that advocate for the group the represent with government - think where trade unions having a seat at the table with government and other interest groups like stay at home parents, unemployed people, religious groups etc. also have a representative guild

  • Corporatocracy is a garbage-tier lib term that is functionally meaningless because it appeals to this notion of being able to turn the clock back to a time when corporations and governments were separate (you know, like back in the old days of the first corporations such as the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company, which ran intercontinental militaries and ruled as the government over entire countries they annexed... 🙄)

Anyway, you know the deal.

I told this person that I get what they're saying but corporatism doesn't mean what they think it means and I gesture to the Mussolini stuff being about corporatism not corporatocracy etc. I'm trying to be patient and kind in how I engage with them but they immediately go into online debatebro mode and start getting snarky and condescending and all of that stuff.

I was trying to give them an easy out and let them down gently so they could develop a deeper understanding of these terms and of politics more broadly. I wasn't looking for some beat down or to feel a sense of superiority over them. I was just trying to signal to them that they're on shaky ground and their position relies upon assumptions, and if they're willing to listen then I can give them pointers for developing their knowledge.

Idk. It just drives me nuts when people automatically assume that they are the smartest person in the room. I don't like humbling people but when someone is so self-assured it's almost impossible to get through to them without turning a discussion with them into bloodsport. I hate it.

 

Title is the epiphany. Story as follows:

There's a fairly new neighbour that has moved in next to me. They are outgoing and extroverted in that needy or demanding way whereas for me as an autistic person, I'm much more self-contained and don't seek out idle chit-chat with acquaintances because I honestly don't need it in my life and I don't reap any benefit from it.

Anyway, there has been a few odd conversational topics that have arisen multiple times over the course of our interactions and with one of them it got to the point where I've thought to myself "What the fuck is up with their preoccupation with this topic? I'm sick of talking about this." and, upon reflection, I realised that they were insinuating themselves into a situation that they are completely oblivious to, that isn't their business, and that isn't a concern whatsoever.

I don't want to explain exactly what it is because it's pretty identifying info but think along the lines of someone "casually" mentioning that the soil your cacti are living in is very dry - yeah it really is, what of it?

Anyway once the penny had (finally) dropped for me that this person doing that weird Boomerish thing where they repeatedly drop mention of something like how nice the weather is today and they expect that you're going to understand that they're trying to suggest that you should mow the lawn today (a legit post that someone made on social media but maybe it was about mowing the lawn or maybe it was about putting the washing out - I forget the specifics), I turned this over in my mind and came to the conclusion in the post title above:

They are literally treating interactions with me like it's a chess match. They are making conversational manoeuvres in an attempt to force a particular response out of me. You don't do that sort of thing with a person unless you see them as an adversary. If you are gonna treat me like an adversary then we are not friends and I have no obligation to extend my goodwill towards you.

(On a tangent, this is the reason why I have a strong dislike of the Socratic Method - because it essentially treats people as your conversational adversaries.)

This is the newest development in my experience of unmasking and growing beyond my people-pleasing so I thought I would share this realisation with others.

 

Never thought I'd see it happen. Not sure which original members are going to be part of the reboot. More news to come I guess?

 
 
 

Here I was feeling mighty uncomfortable with all the WWII parallels I'm seeing and it turns out I've been overlooking the WWI parallels this whole time.

Also the guy in the video is a queer historian who is starving and he's planning on starting a podcast to do audio essays. I think he's one to keep an eye on if you dig history/sociology and he deserves support for the critical work he is doing.

view more: ‹ prev next ›