kore

kore wrote

The table of contents of chapter 4 of what is property:

Demonstration.

Axiom. — Property is the Right of Increase claimed by the Proprietor over any thing which he has stamped as his own.

Corollaries

First Proposition. Property is impossible, because it demands Something for Nothing.

Second Proposition. Property is impossible because wherever it exists Production costs more than it is worth.

Third Proposition. Property is impossible, because, with a given capital, Production is proportional to labor, not to property.

Fourth Proposition. Property is impossible, because it is Homicide.

Fifth Proposition. Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself.

Appendix To The Fifth Proposition.

Sixth Proposition. Property is impossible, because it is the Mother of Tyranny.

Seventh Proposition. Property is impossible, because, in consuming its Receipts, it loses them; in hoarding them, it nullifies them; and in using them as Capital, it turns them against Production.

Eighth Proposition. Property is impossible, because its power of Accumulation is infinite, and is exercised only over finite quantities.

Ninth Proposition. Property is impossible, because it is powerless against Property.

Tenth Proposition. Property is impossible, because it is the Negation of equality.

5

kore wrote

Reply to comment by BlackFlagBop in Wednesday free talk by lentils

of course if this is for recreation/hobby i get saving up, and i understand if you need something powered, but for getting around town i just buy a cheap used bike. if you give it the least bit of maintenance they perform fine, and it's built in theft deterrent to have a really old/shitty bike. Also depending on your use case, mopeds/scooters (2 stroke engines) are really fun. mentioning it since you said you want a car too.

2

kore wrote

if you're asking about this during the hypothetical of 'no gender power imbalance', my answer remains exactly the same. wouldn't even have to ask the question.

current day, assuming I am interpreting you right and I made huge effort over many years (for whatever reason) to be seen in a way that society considers more privileged (for whatever reason), and then I got disillusioned with it, idk. You can find people who identify as women who were trans men for a while and then got disillusioned with it and rejected manhood (not saying its for any of the same reasons whatsoever. just saying that there are indeed people that have it the other way).

this socratic method stuff is cute so I'll put it right back at you, and even more because i saw your 'masculine precarity' post and liked it. does "masculine precarity" affect everyone who is expected to act in a masculine way? is active rejection of masculine traits (through, e.g., wearing different clothing, speaking differently, claiming a non-man identity) an effective way to alleviate it? If yes, is it the only way?

2

kore wrote (edited )

no i'm just saying friendships with girls look way different because of it, trying to say something about the OP, about why I think this sort of relationship will never be 'sapphic' to outside observers no matter how hard you try, but this actually a good thing given our current world state.

Would you be a man...

I think I wouldn't have to ask that question. edit: i think no one would

3

kore wrote

As I was writing my post, and even as I think along these lines, I do also think myself about your criticism about this line of thinking indeed being very much like "masculine guilt" and "male socialization," and I wonder myself if I have been tricked. I really think I do have some feelings that are true to myself, but I hear your criticism, and I will consider it more.

That said, I think you're really misunderstanding the degree of my empathy. I have tried both self mutilation and changing my gender and have found it (in my case!) to not really help with my dysphoria, and of course the release of death beckons from time to time. I sincerely feel that I can understand your hurt and am wishing you the best from afar.

8

kore wrote

What I'm saying is that this expression of privilege and power is not expressed only in how I act, but in how others think of me. And so I think I have realized that if I look a certain way, I am going to express privilege and power in a white supremacist patriarchal society whether I like it or not. My use of 'disclaim' was precise in this sense. I wonder if there have ever been those seen as men who have shed their privilege at every moment? It's difficult to even be aware of at all moments.

And so if I express this privilege and power automatically, those social circles explicitly constructed as a reprieve from people like us are off limits by definition. And I should be happy for that.

4

kore wrote (edited )

In my experience this is because if I am in society and most people are reading me as a man, then I have privilege in a very real sense that cannot simply be disclaimed. Can't have my cake and eat it too.

There are people that would argue that you are on the right track, and it's actually quite dangerous to actively try to demonstrate an identity that captures one's experience. I'm mostly thinking of the anticiv critique of gender, hocquenghem/edelman/baedan, (though there are obvs others), check out 'against the gendered nightmare' by baedan. Over the years this idea of gender "nihilism" has been a large point of discussion on this site, shout out to all the old heads that have participated in those conversations, what a unique time and place in cyberspace.

7

kore wrote

search 'gandhi' in the raddle search bar you'll find a lot. For like "turd" specifically, http://www.ofmi.org/gandhis-sexual-abuse-of-grandnieces/

for political stuff this seems like a good article that was posted a while back about his support for the caste system and suppression of the dalit cause. https://medium.com/@dalitdiva/why-it-is-time-to-dump-gandhi-b59c7399fe66

3

kore wrote

yeah you make a good point. I think this is already embodied in the practice of poaching and failures to stop it for example. I think this whole solution's answer is literally "they don't have the money to protect themselves" and having a concept of them as a legal entity, like orangutans incorporated. they sue the government agency for not protecting their rights, and get damages to invest in their protection. kinda funny to write some weird science fiction about for sure. I'm not supporting the concept, but it's just interesting to think about.

1

kore wrote

I think the idea is that if you assigned a monetary value to every possible natural resource and you had to pay when you used it (e.g.., the orangutans literally have a fund that is a 'member' of the forest 'union' they live in or whatever), profiting off the survival of orangutans would presumably have some cost in other natural resources, and this would be a competing interest between the two funds. The article gets into this, saying that critics find it to be an extremely market-driven solution (and I agree). Alternate proposals include a tax that can only be paid with environmental good work like planting trees and cannot be paid with money.

'should just stop'

the article gets into this too

For at least a decade debate has raged over the relative advantages of utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches to conservation – or protecting nature in exchange for some personal reward as opposed to doing so because it fulfils a moral obligation. One thing seems clear, Ferraro says: on its own, “doing the right thing is not an effective conservation strategy”. Though the debate rages on, it looks as if the right incentives can complement people’s moral drive to conserve. His worry is that the wrong ones could detract from it, so the choice of incentives is critical.

Why do people really want to "save the planet"? Is it because they're all completely selfless and want the best for all other living beings? Or is it because they realize that the earth is that without which they (and possibly their descendants) could not survive, and thus have gained existential knowledge of the value of cooperation? My intuition says there's some of the latter for almost everyone, but it's pretty tough to come to terms with, I haven't.

2

kore wrote

oh can you not because of whitelisting or something? I don't really care whether I swayed you or not, I was just trying to give you some encouragement because I noticed you have a defeatist attitude and I have been quite optimistic so was trying to share that. There are many struggles, they don't end, but it is possible to overcome them one by one!

1

kore wrote (edited )

It's trust* As /u/antispe and u/MountainMan have pointed out, "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson will help you understand the fundamental issue. I think it's essential reading.

I think this topic has even been brought up here in relation to raddle at some point, the question of trusting site admins to run the same code as is in the postmill repo.

*Theoretically maybe you could figure out some combination of: silicon-level hardware verification, microcode verification, and disassembly of the running program. But you've basically reverse engineered the entire computer by that point, and if you did you likely would be off making a bunch of money (or costing other people a bunch of money as the case may be) instead of posting about it online ;)

2