They Thought They Were Free. Book caused me to reevaluate exactly how politics at individual and social levels happened and how fascism works without any individual being inherently “evil.” Class politics and interests followed closely behind to explain how evil can arise among populations that all consider themselves “good people”
Some really good artists at Hexbear too
Hexbear 
The best community on the internet
Lol if joking. If not, I’m sorry but you severely misunderstood what is happening here
Not unless we were directly in the center of it, in which case everything would seem to move away from us. But even then, if I’m not mistaken, physicists and astronomers have also proven that other objects are also moving away from one another too.
We can tell how something is moving based on the shift of its light, like the Doppler effect. The further something is the more its light is shifted, which was how we came to know this phenomenon in general of increasing size of space between all things.
Good is never a perfectly internally consistent category, we always have to discuss it. We just don’t start with the incorrect preconception that there’s such things as universal definitions except as relative claims. “The only universal is the relative” or something like Hegel said.
deleted by creator
Good booked called “A Decolonial Feminism” by Françoise Verges talks about the line of oppression which is defined by those which arrive at clean places and those that must make those places clean. Totally thankless and even exported for imperialism (sending trash to other countries to deal with for very little money, which they must accept because they’re already in poverty from Imperialism).
I’d dig into you here but comrade @UlyssesT@hexbear.net managed to perfectly. You use the analogy because you believe in what the metaphor represents (that brains can be better analyzed at the level of neurons to understand what they are, while dumbass psychologists think you can get it from experiential analysis). The computers are always of course a metaphor, but you’re influenced deeply by the thought processes which arise from the simplification of human experience (or any living experience) to a mathematical basis which computers also use. There is no reason to believe this or take the analysis at that level as any more serious than experience (which we also can’t prove but I can feel something so I believe it)
I think this is a very incorrect take. I don’t think neuroscience has been able to make a single claim against psychology yet, nor any real and predictable claims at all which place it above psychology in application or correctness. Psychology of course has problems, and I’m very open to discussions of issues with methods and shit. But don’t act like neuroscience has much of anything to say about it. They’re entirely tangential fields with one at the experiential level and the other at the technical/non-experience level. Common mistake of thinking you know too much from the meme
It’s a powerful weapon to use in a safe situation, but you also must keep it safe until that moment. Adds difficulty temporarily and then it’s an absolutely astonishing grenade. Throw it at a dragon with magic and watch it burn itself to death. Or be careful to not use any small magic (tough for puzzles and stuff) in order to have a super dangerous weapon.
Also you can just make up something that nullifies it that some enemy brings and it never works again after that, like the main enemy of the dungeon it was found in or so who had hoped to act as a trap to kill you with it (just like these characters probably did)
Not to pester too much, but georgism, philosophically, seems entirely based in an attempt to find some liberal justification for a broad solution to many problems. It attempts to find some legal method within the assumptions of the capitalist system (ownership as it exists in capitalism being key) to mitigate the problems that the original assumption creates. Capitalism will just react and reform to its benefit around those new mitigations systems like it always does. But the georgists ideas remain limited to the set of possibilities that capitalists have limited debate to.
Read some theory, it kinda sounds like you’re basing this entirely off of YouTube videos you’ve seen (including your understanding of socialism)
Landlords increase rent to make up for it, what does georgism do? Landlords don’t exist as such in socialism, but how they do exist still isn’t really impacted by this shift.
Georgism is a misunderstanding of the causes of issues at the “tax affecting productivity” level. That’s not the cause of our problems.
The lack of massive investment of housing and zoning are, again, results of a problem not the problem itself. These issues don’t exist with good planning, and that’s why georgism is just irrelevant except as a bandage for some of the ills of capitalism temporarily
Land is in common ownership + tax based on land distribution. What does this do? Georgism is only relevant to capitalism and is only a minor improvement to efficiency and distribution that will also just become calculated into costs within the C of the C+V equation from marx. It would only have a minor impact based on the size of your house+yard, nothing more. It’s in no way progressing us towards socialism. It could be useful for a NEP/current China situation of broadly capitalist relations controlled by a socialist state, I guess, and I’m open to that tax dominating, though it doesn’t really consider (or tries to theoretically consider but won’t ever be able to) imperialism/unequal exchange and extraction in other lands where the raw product is immediately exported to a country that will refine it.
Ah God, I was wondering (cheering for) when you’d make the turn to “politically only possible with a socialist government” or something along those lines, but now I see you’re one of the famed georgists. First I’ve seen in the wild!
Honestly, I see this text often quoted form the book but I don’t find it super useful as a way to understand fascism. The steps and reforms were all taken for a reason and people agreed with that reason, even the apprehensive agreed enough to stay seated. I think this “separation” isn’t the best thesis out of this book, because the Nazi Party didn’t shift too much in terms of popularity throughout these shifts, except to grow more popular during wartime. The government promised something and many accepted those conditions or at least lent moral license to the achieving the goal and were unwilling to oppose the conditions.
Fascism is Liberalism when and where Liberalism fails to accomplish it’s promises and must consume the people and stuff at the periphery to achieve its goals. A government is just as “far” from its people when it is doing good things that it’s people desire as when it does bad things.
I love the book but have major issues with the ideological assumptions, mostly surrounding fascism’s relationship to its people and to other ideologies