Holy, Holy by Geordie Greep. Insanely talented artist

Me too :/ not only that, but it scares people off even more than just the term communism, which in itself is taboo

Radical love, mutual aid, human solidarity, and nonviolent imagery and ideals are more powerful, since they have the ability to tap into a shared ethical ideal, one that can stretch across political and religious boundaries.

Yup, it’s “The Room” of music

Corey Feldman’s Angelic 2 the Core is without a doubt the worst album I’ve ever listened to. It is not just mediocre or underwhelming, it is not just a “miss,” it is actively and unforgettably horrible. Definitely worth checking out.

Hell yeah. Exo one was kinda what I had in mind, something with stupidly simple mechanics. But I am definitely intrigued by POOLS. Looks spooky. Thanks!

These right wing-ass fuckers ruin everything you love, and now they’ve come for LOTR.

I’m not a proponent of socialism due to the whole ‘state’ aspect, but I’d say universal healthcare and unconditional UBI would be the actual first steps toward the moneyless and stateless goal put forth in this comic.

anarchosyndicalism ftw

I got an OLED the other day and splurged hard during the summer sale.

I got Stray and Little Kitty, Big City to show off to my cat-loving GF, and for me I got Dave the Diver, Sifu, and Babu is You. Also picked up Hollow Knight for good measure, but have yet to start it. 9 Sols, Mullet Madjack, Warhammer Boltgun, Baldurs Gate 3, and Return of the Obra Dinn all on my wishlist.

Thanks, I’ll check out strange horticulture. I’m looking for arthouse games in a sense. Outer Wilds completely changed me, for example, and I want to try to recreate that feeling, but I don’t want an Outer Wilds clone, like how Lords of the Fallen is to Dark Souls.

I want something that’s going to destroy me and make me think, or just be ultra fun and different from anything else I’ve played.

It took me a bunch of tries, too. It’s not really a “fun” game, more like a visual and interactive novel. Once I got the hang of the dice rolls being the biggest part of the game, and knowing/remembering where to seek them out, and getting used to the map, it became easy to pick up and put back down. It’s amazing, but not easy to get going.

My OLED is coming in today, so hyped. Will definitely help with the commute. First off is finishing up Disco Elysium, then maybe playing Edith Finch? Anyone have any other recs? Besides Hades 1, I guess.

Actually, you’re not being clear, at all. The article you linked, yourself, notes that the 37 murdered political candidates were local government candidates murdered between September and May, not national candidates. Far cry from your insinuation that 37 of Claudia Sheinbaum’s political opponents were murdered so she could win by the hands of the cartels.

Oh yeah that one is bad, you’re right. Also the meme with the bell curve is definitely ableist. Hmm, you definitely bring up good points. Gotta chew on it a little. Much of this is just ingrained in us.

I dunno, I see your point but does the guy on the left really have a dented head? I thought those were forehead lines from emotional agitation. Also, where is the drool? I only see tears. I don’t really see the inherent ableism, as much as I see a negative representation things like lack of emotional regulation, “neckbeardyness,” etc. I agree moreso on the whiteness and general tidyness of the chad, and the association of beauty with good and ugliness with bad – I kinda buy your argument there. It is pretty shit that we do that, but I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong for the OP to use this meme template. Ignorant? Maybe.

I feel like you could use similar strategies to decry any meme. For example, the glorification of violence through imagery and use of the word “weapon” in your own meme. Obviously, I’m not going to seriously suggest you’re perpetuating the glorification of violence through your meme, but I kinda think its the same with OPs meme.

Edit: to be clear, all my thoughts on this are entirely from the last 20 min. I assumed you’ve thought more about this subject than me, so I consider myself pretty swayable. But idk, my initial reaction is that we’re looking too far into a meme.

That totally clarifies it, thank you. I was confused. Still, that does not increase the renter’s capital, and puts them at a disadvantage, because as they lose capital, the landlord gains equity. That’s where we were disconnected, but I see now how you were using the term.

For the record, I think most people confused about your position do not believe the basic principles your stance is based on, such as profit = wage theft. Would you say so, or am I putting words into your mouth?

Capital, as in ownership of money or assets that combine to a persons overall wealth – A landlord does not provide this, and only takes it from the renter in order to increase their own capital. You can make an argument that a landlord provides a service, sure, but not that they provide capital, because they really don’t. Maybe you mean they provide a means for a renter to accrue capital? Even then, that’s shoddy, because you have to drill down to owners who actually care about their tenants vs those who charge as much as the market allows.

You can bring up risk, and sure, the landlord incurs risk. That risk is losing their property and becoming a renter. The “service” they provide is entirely dependent on their ownership of property, and I don’t have much sympathy for a person who uses their ownership of property to exploit another person’s need for shelter in the name of accruing more capital.

Those are kinda my quick thoughts, and I’m not totally prepared to defend the absolute shit out of them. My initial point was that landlords do not provide capital, and I stick by that.

To be clear, I don’t think being a landlord automatically makes you a bad person, considering the economic system we live in. But I also don’t think landlords provide a good, generally, to society. I don’t think we need landlords, and I don’t think they become landlords out of the kindness of their hearts, or that they wish to provide a home for someone. They just own more, and as such they can use that ownership to further increase their ownership. I don’t think your example about you with extra cash is wrong in the context of the society we live in – hell, I’m pretty much in that exact situation with my roommate, with whom I was renting before I bought a house. Sure, you could say I’m doing him a favor by letting him live in my house for a low cost, but mostly I am the one accruing capital at his expense. It doesn’t make me a saint for doing that, it makes me greedy that I’m charging anything at all. That’s part of the disgust I personally have for this system, is that we are all compelled to own more more more more. It’s really not work hard and you’ll succeed. It’s own hard.

Sorry, I know you’re not the original poster, but that doesn’t actually answer my question. The question is “what capital does a landlord provide?” and the answer is, none, because when we talk about capital in this context, we’re talking ownership of money or assets.

The landlord does not provide either of these things, and in fact only takes them in order to increase their own personal wealth.

Can you explain your last sentence? I don’t see how landlords are providing capital, at all. If anything, landlords are depriving you of capital, and using your money (rent) to gradually gain capital (increase in ownership of property, through mortgage payment) for themselves.

But maybe I’m misreading you somehow.