I lost some, I won some.

  • 0 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • We all like to joke about cats leeching but they’re definitely not Capitalist. They’re hunter gatherers for whom the concept of hoarding resources doesn’t exist. To them, when there’s plenty, you vie for it all within the social group (seems there are hierarchies?) and no one has to go hungry and there’s no waste (including wasted energy). This also preserves plenty of leisure and social time.

    If raised in an environment where it makes sense to hunt and you encourage them to do so, they’ll happily contribute what they believe to be palatable food. If left alone, reasonably fit cats can fend for themselves too if necessary.

    They’ll take what shelter they get and bury their waste so it can fertilize the ground.


  • Regnier still works from home one to two days a week, and has been even more lenient with Santander’s 19,000 UK staff, with office-based workers only expected to be onsite two days a week.

    “I don’t think it’s absolutely vital that people spend all five days a week in the office as they did pre-Covid,” Regnier says from his sixth-floor office near Euston station in London. “And, actually, had it not been for Covid, I wouldn’t have accepted this job, because I wouldn’t have wanted to be away from home five days a week in London. That wouldn’t have been good for the family or for me.”

    This has helped Regnier, who is paid £3.3m to run the UK’s fifth-largest bank, gain a reputation as an “approachable” boss, according to a former colleague

    Nobody should be paid that much but he’s an outlier for the industry in allowing hybrid work at least.




  • It doesn’t. Graeber was an anthropologist and Wengrow is an archaeologist. It’s a review of existing evidence from past civilizations (the diversity of which most people are hugely ignorant about), making the case the most common representations of “civilization” and “progress” are severely limited, probably to a detrimental extent since we often can only base our conceptions of what is possible on what we know.









  • Understandable. The reason I still think it is though is that for persons above a certain level of wealth, laws about social issues have no meaning. They’re not good, not bad, just irrelevant to them.

    That’s why the same wealthy donors fund politicians of both sides; parties that promises human rights protections, and parties that promise to dismantle such rights. The people politicians are answering to don’t have a reason to care either way. They can be and do whatever they want and unlike the rest of us, their money guarantees their safety.

    Speaking for myself at least, I find the political world makes a lot more sense when you assume that the typical politician doesn’t believe in anything but money. All of us in every marginalized group are just chess pieces to them. Or put another way, we’re buttons they can press to get the desired type of outrage reaction that distracts the public from noticing how they’re being screwed on particular given day.




  • The reason it seems “muddled” to you is likely because bigotry itself is based in ignorance.

    Many people just accept and absorb what they’ve heard or seen in cartoons and popular media while growing up, lumping different groups of people together based on oversimplifications and misrepresentations of who they are. The assumptions on which people base their Islamophobia are quite racist, conflating Arab identity (which people think they know by a person’s appearance based on racist stereotypes) with Islam. The point is to be able to identify the bigotry for what it is.

    If you try to define a form bigotry by the actual reality it’s misrepresenting, you’ll miss the bigotry itself.