« Of course, there is no help for authors (or programs!) that generate unreadable code. If you know the HTML format and you have looked at the source of some pages on the Web, you have probably wondered occasionally what monster was able to mangle the HTML code behind a simple Web page or an e-mail message in such a way that it is hard to believe that HTML was ever called a "structured language." Given the opportunity, some people will make a mess of anything. »
#Ao3TagOfTheDay: all link knows how to do is simp and be horny
do you think the state has an obligation to protect social access to community spaces for queer people? do you think the state has an obligation to suppress white supremacists? do you think the state has an obligation to suppress conspiracy theorists / purveyors of misinformation? i think many people would say “yes” now who would have said “no” a decade ago; this is a tide turning in favour of communism
those of us living in capitalistic societies recognize that this is a more advanced state of control than we currently experience. control itself is neither good nor bad, however. just as capitalistic society can provide life-saving medical treatment or deny it, communist society can equally quash both white-supremacists and queer culture. the important question at hand is whether you think the decision regarding which societies should be supported (and which not) should be handled as a matter of state, or through some other mechanism. this is a particularly relevant question today, as we find that traditional mechanisms for dealing with these questions have run headlong into some severe crises
according to foucault, the state has undergone an evolution from “making dead or letting live” to “making live or letting die”; he terms this second situation “biopower”
many anarchists and libertarians want to return to the first state of affairs, and consequently seek to reduce the influence of the modern state; these are all, in one sense or another, neo-feudalists
marx instead would say that the state has not gone far enough. it has concerned itself with the lives of its citizens, yes, but only their INDIVIDUAL lives. it does not protect, and indeed acts at the expense of, their SOCIAL lives. the communist is consequently not concerned simply with making live or letting die INDIVIDUALLY, but with making live and letting die SOCIALLY. the communist state takes as its prerogative the nurturing of certain manifestations of social life at the expense of others
they do matter, and they matter especially when you have some socialists coming in with dogma or trying to instil a universal social life predicated on white western ideals of what society should look like
what time has shown however is that many socialists have very different ideas of what this social life should be like or how it should be structured
these questions do not stop us from organizing against a neoliberal regime which seeks to quash all human social life indiscriminately, but considering they are the reason we fight (for socialism) it would be folly to say they don't matter
one thing i do agree with early marx about is that socialism is the struggle for the SOCIAL LIFE OF MAN, a struggle in which we can ALL BE UNITED through a SHARED COMMON INTEREST which need not be manifest in the INDIVIDUAL OR EGOISTIC LIFE of INDIVIDUAL PERSONS
i think it would probably not be insignificant and require devising/learning initial/medial/final/isolate forms for all the letters
Administrator / Public Relations for GlitchCat. Not actually glitchy, nor a cat. I wrote the rules for this instance.
“Constitutionally incapable of not going hard” — @aescling
“Fedi Cassandra” – @Satsuma
I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THINGS. YOU CAN JUST @ ME.
I work for a library but I post about Zelda fanfiction.