silvermyth
Don't be afraid of the dragons in the forest. 10 points if you can identify the song that's from
— Spøkelse Report User
Risk and/or Reward 9 comments
silvermyth
· 2 years ago
If my catgirl girlfriend DOESN'T puke on my carpet, I'm getting a refund
4
YugiPro #13 - The Nightmare Returns 22 comments
Hah you want to ban consumer single-use plastic and yet you live in society checkmate 11 comments
silvermyth
· 2 years ago
Say there's no government, or very little government. Private ownership of the means of production would be all well and good, except that the workers would probably realise the power of collective bargaining and seize control one way or another. Under our current system, this is where the police step in. Without the police, it's either the workers eventually take control, or the current owner employs their own agents to do violence on their behalf. What we're left with is communism, or rule by oligarchs. It'd turn into who could hire the most thugs. And they'd reinvent authoritarian government sooner or later.
1
Hah you want to ban consumer single-use plastic and yet you live in society checkmate 11 comments
silvermyth
· 2 years ago
I'm not saying East Germany was a perfect place, just that the planned economy was at least as successful as modern neoliberal capitalism. I don't support the wall, or any walls; I believe human movement should be completely decriminalised. The wall was specifically around East Berlin, trying to prevent emigration, though, not because of a lack of food in East Germany. My statement wasn't of support for the planned economies of socialist states, but of pointing out hypocrisy.
Now, you say that all of the problem with capitalism can be ascribed to government interference. I'd say this is where we agree the most- the difference is that I think that capitalism can't succeed without a government constantly interfering to keep it viable.
Now, you say that all of the problem with capitalism can be ascribed to government interference. I'd say this is where we agree the most- the difference is that I think that capitalism can't succeed without a government constantly interfering to keep it viable.
Hah you want to ban consumer single-use plastic and yet you live in society checkmate 11 comments
silvermyth
· 2 years ago
Maybe it would be alright in smaller economies. But currently, the neoliberal capitalism of imperial core countries requires the enslavement or otherwise unfair and violent treatment of those in the global south. Look at the current scandal with Nestle- the child labour and other unfair practices are employed by practically every other major corporation that produces goods. Even countries that claim to keep their hands clean of such things within their own borders encourage this exploitation. And that's ignoring the violence against the proletariat within the countries that form the imperial core.
The problem with capitalism is that to work, it requires constant growth in profit, and that value has to come from somewhere. And profit isn't the same as success or health of a system.
As for planned economies, East Germany didn't go so badly. The problems originated elsewhere, and where it was flawed, it certainly wasn't worse than capitalism.
The problem with capitalism is that to work, it requires constant growth in profit, and that value has to come from somewhere. And profit isn't the same as success or health of a system.
As for planned economies, East Germany didn't go so badly. The problems originated elsewhere, and where it was flawed, it certainly wasn't worse than capitalism.
Viking ellipsoid lenses 1 comments
silvermyth
· 2 years ago
Pictured is one of the Visby lenses, a piece of jewellery used to magnify or distort images. It could be used as a telescope, reading stone, to start fires, or simply to look pretty. They were found at viking* graves in Gotland, Sweden.
It's thought that these were produced by artisans that lacked the complex mathematics to calculate the shapes of the lenses necessary for magnification, but worked by trial-and-error instead. It's unclear whether it was vikings* who produced these, or if they were acquired via trade networks stretching through Eastern Europe and Byzantium. However, excavation shows that the materials needed were being worked nearby to make jewellery.
* I object to the term "viking", because these were from the 11-12th centuries, really at the tail end of the Viking Age, which is generally accepted to have ended in 1066. Furthermore, not every Viking-Age-Scandinavian was a viking. Most were just chilling in their villages and cities, trading, crafting, etc.
1
It's thought that these were produced by artisans that lacked the complex mathematics to calculate the shapes of the lenses necessary for magnification, but worked by trial-and-error instead. It's unclear whether it was vikings* who produced these, or if they were acquired via trade networks stretching through Eastern Europe and Byzantium. However, excavation shows that the materials needed were being worked nearby to make jewellery.
* I object to the term "viking", because these were from the 11-12th centuries, really at the tail end of the Viking Age, which is generally accepted to have ended in 1066. Furthermore, not every Viking-Age-Scandinavian was a viking. Most were just chilling in their villages and cities, trading, crafting, etc.
Centaur Wheelchairs 3 comments
silvermyth
· 2 years ago
This is cool as hell, does anyone recognise the artist? I can't read that signature.
1
Hah you want to ban consumer single-use plastic and yet you live in society checkmate 11 comments
silvermyth
· 2 years ago
People always like to say that capitalism is the natural state of trade, that it's all "simple economics, r*tard". Alright, show me the simple part, then we can talk about the evils of a planned economy.
Pop pop mofo 3 comments
Land of the free 17 comments
silvermyth
· 3 years ago
That’s a reach. We’re saying insurance should cover it. It’s a health matter- why would every organ be important but the teeth/gums can get fucked?
9
"Birthing People" 74 comments
silvermyth
· 3 years ago
Just because a percentage is small doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. In the U.S., there are 10,5-13 suicides per 100.000 people. So that’s ,000105-,00013 which seems tiny. But would you argue that we shouldn’t care about the feelings of those affected by suicide?
Keep in mind that not everyone wants to tell the government that they’re transgender. There are a lot of us, more than people think. Already two of us in this very comment section. It costs 0 dollars to think about the feelings of others.
▼
Keep in mind that not everyone wants to tell the government that they’re transgender. There are a lot of us, more than people think. Already two of us in this very comment section. It costs 0 dollars to think about the feelings of others.
"Birthing People" 74 comments
silvermyth
· 3 years ago
It's not dehumanising language. We haven't replaced the word "woman" with "birthing person" or "menstruator". Just as we haven't replaced the word "man" with "people with erectile dysfunction". But when we have an ad for people with erectile dysfunction, and they are called thusly, nobody's like "we live in a dystopia where men can't be called men". Because not every man has erectile dysfunction, and not everyone with erectile dysfunction is a man. This isn't 'literally The Handmaid's Tale zomg', it's concise, inclusive language, and the only people getting upset are people who found out that it includes trans people. Remember, I was born a woman. I consider myself a feminist/egalitarian.
5
"Birthing People" 74 comments
silvermyth
· 3 years ago
I didn't say the post said anything about Mother's Day, it was an example. The tweet complains that women are no longer called mothers, but instead "birthing persons". My point with the example is to show that saying "birthing persons" does nothing to take away from women or mothers.
And yeah, I consider the post transphobic. People in the comments are talking about how they won't "appease" trans people. A quick twitter search for "birthing person" and "menstruator" will show that most of the tweets are complaining about trans people. I know you cropped out the person who wrote the tweet, but I've seen the tweet before, OP is a radical feminist.
4
And yeah, I consider the post transphobic. People in the comments are talking about how they won't "appease" trans people. A quick twitter search for "birthing person" and "menstruator" will show that most of the tweets are complaining about trans people. I know you cropped out the person who wrote the tweet, but I've seen the tweet before, OP is a radical feminist.
The clash of social warriors 6 comments
silvermyth
· 3 years ago
Clearly you've never been to my school. Everyone's gangsta until some kid cites Ben Shapiro.
Something clever about scooby doo 1 comments
She choosed the bad boy over the good man 9 comments
silvermyth
· 3 years ago
Oh yeah, and Gaston was a dirty fucker. He paid the guy running the asylum to throw Maurice in there, so that he could isolate Belle and give her no choice but to marry him. Belle was stupid, but I have zero respect for Gaston.
2
She choosed the bad boy over the good man 9 comments
silvermyth
· 3 years ago
It's not like Belle could've had a job. It was the 1700s, her options were mother and that's it. It's not like she was lazing around, living off of "daddy's money", her father was a poor inventor, and she was an unmarried teenager. I agree that it's unfair of her to think herself better than everyone in the village. But it's not fair to be mad that she wanted to go on an adventure. Imagine living in a technology-free village your whole life, with no option for fun but to find someone to marry, you'd go crazy too.
Don't lie to yourself, Gaston was a piece of shit. He thought he was entitled to Belle's affection, despite not giving a shit about her wellbeing. He wasn't fair to Le Fou. I agree that the Beast was a threat for having kidnapped two people, but at that point in the film, Gaston didn't even know that the Beast had done that. He just took one look at the Beast's face and decided to kill him. And then he kidnapped Belle's father, throwing that argument right out the window.
5
·
Edited 3 years ago
Don't lie to yourself, Gaston was a piece of shit. He thought he was entitled to Belle's affection, despite not giving a shit about her wellbeing. He wasn't fair to Le Fou. I agree that the Beast was a threat for having kidnapped two people, but at that point in the film, Gaston didn't even know that the Beast had done that. He just took one look at the Beast's face and decided to kill him. And then he kidnapped Belle's father, throwing that argument right out the window.
Let’s make figma memes a thing 1 comments
Thank you Amazon, very cool 2 comments
