masquerademinutes

masquerademinutes wrote (edited )

either these mfer's are pro capitalism or against it. [edit: can't be "yaaa, our overlord are putting "their" money on causes I don't agree! they must be apolitical! Like not doing anything against the treatment of First Nations in Canada (pipeline protests) is apolitical!"

3

masquerademinutes wrote

This part really stuck with me:

Separate is not equal. The way people are treated in women’s prison is not the same as in men’s prison. Some of this is to accommodate different needs – clothes with separate tops and bottoms instead of a jumpsuit, access to pads and tampons, more social workers, less emphasis on anger and more on trauma in programming. Some of it is clearly sexist and is the prison enforcing gender norms – strict dress codes and rules against touching, discouragement of exercise, low tolerance for conflict and fighting.

Beyond different treatment though, even things that are the same between men and women’s prisons don’t produce the same effect – standardized meal trays, visitation, surveillance and searches, the presence of both male and female guards. The two experiences of these identical features end up strikingly different. Lets quickly flesh out one example:

The men’s and women’s provincial prisons in Ontario get exactly the same food. In men’s prison, this is usually experienced as insufficient, in part because a big part of prisoner culture there is working out – it’s common for prisoners to be released fitter and more muscular than when they went in. In women’s prison, working out is strongly discouraged between prisoners and is sometimes even treated as a rule violation by guards. It’s normal for prisoners to quickly gain weight while having overall fitness erode due to enforced inactivity. Society as a whole treats fatness super differently for men and women, so this weight gain often comes along with shame and interacts with eating disorders or other mental health challenges.

6

masquerademinutes wrote

Reply to by !deleted23972

Oof. That thread is a dumpster fire, blaming "progressives" (progres) for every problem that exists. When in doubt, blame young people. Somehow the dogwhistling in Spanisg can be so more predictable that it's tiring. (They're also probably Españoles, judging by the 'progre' vocabulary.)

4

masquerademinutes wrote

It has the same energy as "[...], don't you agree?".

No, damn. What am I supposed to say? I know some people use it without harmful intentions, but manipulators and people who appeal to hierarchy like to pull that expression to reduce confrontation.

Luckily, I'm not annoyed or triggered by this expression, so I speak my mind, but I see how it can be used almost as semi-gashlighting. "Don't you agree? Good."

4

masquerademinutes wrote (edited )

What is interesting is that many "rationals" do not follow through the logical end of rationality and don't accept the disenchantment of the world, a lot of them still think in terms of "values", "virtues" (see them using the word "degeneracy"), which are all representations of emotions. Ray Brassier calls this out in "Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction" and says this should be seen as a power of rationality instead of a pitiful end.

It's also interesting to see them appeal to nature when it's convenient ("sex differences", "black vs white ppl") when rationality is the very thing that would/should transcend nature -- you can't base yourself in a concept and then backtrack.

3

masquerademinutes wrote

Reply to by socialist_boi

In Ancapistan, if I blast my aztec-sino-brazilian neo-post-future-modern tribal-funk and the neighbour complains, can the neighbour do something or just swallow their pride? What if it's a strong light instead? Do photons break the NAP?

3

masquerademinutes wrote

Reply to Okey dokey by ziq

yes I am but but that's a fallacy.

P has qualities of Q

I don't like Q

Therefore I don't like P

They're not dependent or inseparable.

It's like saying "This car is red. I hate red therefore I hate this car" or vice-versa.

But true, destroy kap#######

4

masquerademinutes wrote

[Samuel L. Jackson voice] "Say rational again!"

That's one of the things that, to me, invalidate right-wing ideologies/laissez-faire/libertarian free-marketists (??), whatever they call themselves, because they start from the presupposition that humans are rational, and any scientists would rightfully whoop anyone who thinks that. Such a pity: objectivism is wrong and anti-reality, starting by its name.

4

masquerademinutes wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in reddit bans chapo subreddit by shellac

If one knows about the concept of symbolic violence, "both sides" and "free speech" can never be an argument for hate. This shit isn't separated from reality. Reddit has been a bureaucracy forever, but it's consolidated -- whilst the normal user thinks it's China's fault because "China invests in reddit".

6