nope

methodology:

Green Anarchists believe that the State hinders individual environmental efforts from taking any real effect, so its basically just the same as any environmentalists minus asking the state for shit

Anti-Civs believe that Civilization (as an aggregate of institutions) actively promote the destruction of natural organic methods of organization which is why it must be destroyed, being anti-civ and being green isn't one in the same, you can be anti-civ and not be green just ask the accelerationists

Primitivists believe in that the only hope for the world is the restoration of primitive communism and they will try to achieve this by any means necessary.

All of these are pretty reductive and they don't do anyone justice, it's much better for you to ask the experts on the field

I mean you have a point, but given that we are against Liberal Democracy, their ire is well deserved.

considering data, immigrants and minorities do have more school failures, do more crime, live in more dilapidated projects, have little economic success & are a lot more likely to be in menial to criminal enterprises,

but this data just excludes the conditions that oppress them and just reduces their "inferiority" to statistics rather than as an effect of deeply rooted discriminatory policies and governments that use that data.

data-wise cultural racism is proven by science so I don't think a scientific hierarchy is justified either

very rare occassions however I hope to wear a tie everyday

I must be around 25% considering I wear a tie but still believe that Anarchy means democracy

thank you

I am yet to learn what I have done wrong this time?

hot take: perfect markets

When people think of punishment, we think of violence by which we enforce negatively proper values by which one is meant to be, when we beat up nazis, we do not enforce anything, it's better to think of it as killing a zombie rather than beating your kid with a shoe

This is the first time I actually passed a test in this goddamn course

This is just cursed

Thanks for that analysis, it's mostly apt and it's an amazing read. a few notes tho

Then when you first said fast food expenses I thought it was in a year and I thought that was a lot. But then when you said that it was monthly I was just so confused like there has to be a miscommunication. Like if someone in the US makes as much money after taxes as you have budgeted for fast food a year they can get a nice house, afford multiple children, have a decent retirement, decent new car ect. You couldn't afford to live in Seattle or Chicago but you could do this in most places even many cities. 283,500 PHP is a lot of money in the US. Its a metric fuck ton in the Philippines even in a city to my understanding.

the calculation was made on the assumption that one eats a McDonald's savings meal every day, the alternative is the groceries, I just accounted both as an either or

I'm not even sure how its possible to spend that much money on fast food in a month so there must be some miscommunication. Like if you eat a big mac meal every day 3 times a day in the US that will only be 27,741 PHP a month. So I'm not sure how 283,500 a month is even possible. I guess it could make sense if you are talking about eating out in general and not eating just at mcdonalds or wendys or whatever.

I agree, many fast food/foreign stores are way above their western mark-ups, it's simply put, unfair to the working class family who can only live on such a thing.

So I can understand how one can spend 175,273 a month on charity and mutual aid. Damn thats a really big mutual aid fund considering most mutual aid costs very little to do. You can really fuck shit up with that much money a year. Tho I wouldn't recommend spending money on mutual aid until you have secured a way you have set up a method to reliably get that money. If you are spending money you don't have to prop up a mutual aid program that is a little callous imo.

This calculation was made on a certain personal policy of mine 50% for personal expenses 30% for Mutual aid or charity 10% for growth and 10% savings. So, yes, following my lifestyle, I agree with that assumption tho.

One critique I have had is you don't seem to have a grasp on many other expenses. How are you getting to work? Will you be able to walk? Where is a good pair of walking shoes budgeted, where are things like furniture, soap ect budgeted. You have said you budgeted for saving for items but you don't seem to have a good estimate on how much you are spending on quality of life / essential items other than shelter and food. Plus if I were you I would get a more solid grasp on how much you are buying on nonessential items like a computer ect. Yes you have a good chunk of money budgeted for it but you don't seem to calculated how much you need to save to maintain your current / desirable lifestyle.

in terms of my transportation, I plan to live in the city center which allows me to just walk to work. I also have a lot of hand-me-downs personally and many clothes, shoes, et al. from previous eras, I live in a medical family in an Asian country so you can imagine how well off they are but they care more about stuff and images than people which is the thought-process that got me to writing this budget, planning to run away.

This is a very bad tactic for estimating income. What position are you going to work in then calculate the average for the city you will live in. Lumping in doctors, rural farmers and urban poor living in expensive cities is not an effective way to know how much money you will make. Using average net salary to know how much you prob will make is a really bad idea imo.

I mean I agree with this point, I'm just using this as a footnote that my possible first job will be within this ballpark, give or take 15% or 20% at any direction. I will consider that the expenses exist within the context of my first job and the lifestyle I live and possibly people in my generation have similar lifestyles (this is already bare minimum because I haven't accounted for insurance, healthcare, trans people, gamers, vegans et al.).

But largely a good read, thank you

go ahead

(1) Basically we need to have more industries that cater to sourcing from waste and trash in an effort to clean up the world rather than producing more albeit from organic sources, (2) what u/metocin wrote

I mean I'm for green industry but really detest the idea of solar panels, they're literally white/western excuses to continue neo-colonial agendas

Has it solved its internal problems yet? so why is it Meta?