thekraken

thekraken wrote (edited )

I find the whole subject questionable at best. Ridiculous groups like Scientologists hate psychiatry, and they're bloody vapid useless pieces of crap. A movement that garners supporters like that doesn't exactly come across as at all sensible. What is the rational basis for being against psychiatry (as a medical discipline)?

Edit: Hey you. Yeah, the one downvoting without providing any actual response to the question / premise for your position. That only serves to indicate your lack of ability to justify your belief. Perhaps try to actually explain your position instead of just trying to bury someone questioning it. If it has any rational basis that shouldn't be too difficult. The revolution will not be started by someone stuffing their fingers in their ears and going 'LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING ME TO ACTUALLY SUPPORT MY POSITIONS'. ;)

−1

thekraken wrote

Greeters cannot stop you from leaving the store. At the point of exit, you have (in theory) already paid for your merchandise, and it is yours, so forcibly detaining you would be unlawful. They're a form of security theatre. Just ignore them and walk past.

1

thekraken wrote

Unless you signed for the package, they're just going to assume someone walked off with it. The delivery person won't get in any shit. The only way THAT happens is if lots of packages go 'missing' with the same delivery person, and then the delivery company will investigate, usually by planting tracked (like, lowjacked) passages or taking hidden camera video.

1

thekraken OP wrote (edited )

Maybe in the US. Where I live (Canada), it's far cheaper to eat vegan than carnivore. But sure, apply your American bias based on US gov't subsidies that don't exist everywhere. Way to be a narrow-minded nationalist.

And even so, I highly doubt vegan staples such as bulk beans and rice and other items like frozen or canned veg / farmer's market fresh veg / cost more than any sort of meat, even in the USA. I know I can go to a chain bulk store here that also exists in the US and stock up on dried legumes, TVP, nutritional yeast, baking goods, etc for far far cheaper than it costs for even the same items at a supermarket, let alone what beef/chicken/pork cost.

Many poor people (of which I am also one) eat poorly due to lack of knowledge on how to properly prepare and cook nutritious food. I lived for five years in a 'food desert' and saw many many people simply buying their "groceries" at a dollar store, primarily in the form of cheap frozen processed shit that was quite often animal-based - and their costs still came out ahead of mine from just taking an hour to go bulk store shopping on my bike and hitting a fresh market on the way home.

So yes, there are classist and predatory issues in regards to which type of stores are in the neighbourhoods of the poor in North America, but there is to a greater degree a need for education and available public transportation, since actual food costs for a vegan diet are always going to be cheaper unless you're living on highly processed vegan foods like Beyond Meat and Chao slices.

2

thekraken wrote

I read through your wiki entry, and decided to try it out. I fired up Whonix, and used the Onion site with a protonmail account I created and they didn't ask for any ID or anything, just that I confirm a code they sent to my newly-made protonmail account. I've added a bunch of groups/etc, but we'll see if I get zucc'd. However for now, the Onionsite+a throwaway email seems to be functioning.

3

thekraken OP wrote (edited )

I'll try to address your questions as best I can, sure :)

You say that people are "born physically, socially, or mentally disadvantaged in our current society" - but it seems like you think that this is an factor of their being rather than a result of the society marking them as deficient

Well, this highly depends on the situation. Someone born, say, without legs is objectively disadvantaged in some instances where having legs is useful, and if there is a technological solution to this, it ought to be made available to them should they wish it. I see your point about society marking them as deficient, however - it relates back to my point about the Deaf, wherein there do lack hearing, but many Deaf people feel that is simply how they are, and not a disability, and indeed that being Deaf is a cultural identity. It's a tricky situation, and one which I in no way claim to have a great answer for, but I feel we ought to strive to resolve.

In so far as your point about ableism goes, I feel there is a vast difference between noting that someone does not have legs, for example, and offering them robotic legs to walk around on, versus claiming that someone is somehow less of a person because they lack legs, which is obviously untrue. If that person prefers to tackle the world how they are and not rely on external augmentation, they ought to be supported and encouraged by society in doing so, and not be treated as less for doing so. Still, people making choices have to accept the results of those choices. Someone choosing to live without legs will (probably) not become a world-champion kick-boxer, for example.

This is clear in the capitalist world with the example of cars and cellphones, how much it is hard for people to participate in the world without using that technology, even when people find it detrimental to their wellbeing

You make a good point, this can be an effect of technology in general. However, there are groups of people who still find ways to function in the world without adopting technologies they do not want to be part of (the Amish or other Mennonite groups come to mind, for varying degrees of technological acceptance or not). I wouldn't say anything ought to ever be mandatory, and indeed, accommodation needs to be made for those who cannot or will not use whatever the next iteration of smartphone-type technological progress is.

but even in an anarchistic world, the grand power held by those who adopt technology would doubtlessly require others to adopt technology, or be at the mercy of the technocrats

This really comes down to how people interact. Sure, someone who is willing to use some technologies will have advantages over those who choose not to (say, someone being willing to communicate remotely via cellular versus someone who only chooses to interact in person will have advantages in logistics, perhaps) - however we need to respect people's rights to make those choices and not exclude them from aspects of society. They may need to make a bit more effort due to their choice, but it still needs to be doable for everyone.

Have you engaged with the various ways that technology mediates and so doing alienates us from the world? How that alienation produces people who care less about the things they are alienated from?

This is more down to how the technology is used than what it is. We can use online communications for organization, discussion, and constructive purposes - or we can all get fake news from russian bots on Facebook. It's a tool, it's down to how it is used. This has been a thing since the dawn of humanity when the first person cut fruit with a sharp stone, and then someone else decided to kill someone with a different sharp stone.

Have you engaged with the colonial nature of resource extraction and how the resources you need for your technology is going to often be under the homelands of people who don't want to live like you do or to leave their homes?

This is an incredibly valid point, and needs to be resolved. We can't be exploiting others for our (or even all of humanity's) benefit. I am cognizant of this issue, and feel that it is hugely important to get right if we as a species are to have any hope for the future.

3