HN user
The soviets also had the problem that they were an autocracy who had little regard for the conditions of their people.
They were also huge. Community level programs like this can be much more functionally democratic and uplifting.
This is the classic answer to the classic question about anarchy:
"who will do the unpleasant, demeaning work?"
"We only think it's unpleasant because we make it unpleasant. We can have clean, well lit factories. We just have to prioritize making that work more pleasant."
Of course queer as "unusual" predates "queer" as gay. :D It's a reclaimed slur. It was a negative label applied to people who ultimately decided to make that negative label a part of their identity.
Funding is a huge part, for sure, but also getting incorporated. Talk to a lawyer and your state about founding an LLC or sole proprietorship. Ezpz. Done in an hour.
Talk about founding a workers co-op that's democratically run? With shares issued to each worker? There's just no template for it. It's days of work to get it over the line.
Would the author say, "I am a ..." and end with any of the above? If so, they identify as that group.
That's what identity is, it's the set of things you consider yourself to be. "I am" and "I consider myself to be" are very simple clauses.
How big or small a part you decide to make your identities part of your personality is up to you, but like, they are still part of your identity.
Well, queer encompasses more than just gay and lesbian people.
Non-binary people can be queer, heterosexual trans people can be queer, asexual people can be queer. Same with polyamorous people.
I think you've both got the right answer and explained it with a very negative framing.
Gender and Sexual Minority, LGBTQ+, and queer all describe a largely similar set of folks.
Queer arose not from "woke-leftist" spaces, but grew out of 70s and 80s radical gay and trans spaces - groups like the Gay Liberation Front - who were willing to fight back (violently if necessary) against violence and discrimination.
Queer is absolutely a political identity, a framing of ones gender or sexual identity. They intersect with one another. It's not unlike "I eat only plants" vs "I'm vegan", they mean roughly the same thing until you hit contexts where they don't.
I use the label queer as a self selected one. (Not self imposed, it's not an impression.)
Queer is not the same as LGBTQ+ (queer is more overly political). My identity is both given and self selected.
A hundred percent this. I'm not a lesbian, but I'm going to the mat if needed to protect lesbians. We protect us.
Everyone is labeled by default. Unless you weren't assigned a gender at birth, don't have a skin color, don't have sexual preferences, didn't have an economic situation you grew up in, didn't have a family with either single parents or multiple payments, etc etc
Doesn't land for me. I'm queer, my identity isn't huge, but it does include queer.
That alone is enough to make some folks want to do violence to me (I have first hand experience with this).
Telling me to "stop being x" is a bad vibe when x is something intrinsic about me AND the anti x folks hate me just for existing. I just want to live my life.
It is orders of magnitude more challenging to found a co-op. Let alone get enough capital to get started.
We've set up our society to make it difficult for worker owned businesses.
Good news then, because many of his ideas have been demonstrated!
^ case in point.
I'd encourage you to read The Conquest of Bread for some high level thoughts on other ways we could arrange things that a) aren't primitive and b) aren't capitalism.
Slavery means lots of things. Chattel slavery, yes, but also forced labor like in us prisons. Indentured labor, child soldiers, forced marriage, etc etc.
The concept of "wage slavery" is basically, "you are not free to not earn a wage because you will starve". It's also easy to draw parallels between the commodification of ones labor and slavery.
It's a term that is not new, is widely used, and debated plenty. The incorrect response is to say, "that's a useless way to think". Show some intellectual curiosity - why do people believe that, what values do they hold, what are their reasons, which arguments do I disagree with, etc.
I'm a socialist, I don't think capitalists have a "useless way to think about the world", I have fundamental critiques of specific policies and different values on certain social behaviors.
I love how many comments here are, "I have no domain expertise, but these seem like nitpicks".
If a user provides feedback like this, listen. Getting this sort of detail from a user about design decisions is invaluable. They know the ergonomic setup they need, what works and doesn't, and they will have insights a non domain expert simply can't.
Amazon is running out of engineers too. The way that company treats workers is finally catching up to them (hopefully).
I would argue that Soviet states were autocracies (and some would argue they were capitalist, just state capitalist.)
Stalin sucks, flat out. Any socialist or communist who thinks Stalin was good should not be listened to.
Karl Marx talks a lot about alienation as capitalism advances. Alienation from our labor, alienation from our society, and eventually alienation from the self.
Independent of how you think of the rest of Marx's work, I think it's useful to examine this specific concept in the modern era. What you are describing is a classic example of alienation from society - as our society turns increasingly to machines to create and deliver entertainment it's easier for us all to just... stay separated and isolated. Machines tell us marvel movies are profitable, so we get marvel movies, etc.
And I know hn is not a fan of Marx, generally, but this concept I really think is applicable here.
The latter. I make something like 750k a year, people in my income range can afford more and still live very comfortably.
The third option is that it genuinely makes me happy, because it implies we're taking care of everyone more. My money going to charity is fine. My money going to taxes implies other wealthy people like me are also chipping in for schools, healthcare, etc.
The number of times I've been told I don't believe my beliefs because they don't make rational economic sense is innumerable.
I'm happy when my tax rate goes up. This apparently really bothers people. (Me being happy about it.)
I found it the opposite. I felt touched, it was very human and raw and real.
It's not an essay about a problem, it's an essay about experiencing a problem. The former can be solved with a lawyer, the latter with... Well nothing really. It's an experience.
I use mine in the rain, is there a reason not to?
If the city won't provide infrastructure, take the whole lane.
It was developed as a weapon. I guess the parent is saying IQ tests are also a weapon that has found some not weapon uses?
Electric bikes are an order of magnitude more efficient than cars and several times more efficient than bikes. (Measured as calories/electrical power).
People who ride electric bikes still get the benefits of exercise (elevated heart rate, muscle use) though obviously less than regular biking.
I ride mine year round in Seattle, it's incredible. I deliver cargo, go grocery shopping, visit the library. This should be the default mode.
It's also one of the most poisoned by history. It has, for instance, been used in eugenics movements and forced sterilizations in the US.
It is influenced by all sorts of factors, from parental income to nutrition.
My family has folks in psych, and they universally regard IQ as "pretty bad, but useful for roughly measuring one form of intelligence".
Give everyone a ubi, sorting out the geniuses will never actually identify only the geniuses. And less smart people deserve basic human dignity. Just give it to everyone. I guarantee you people will still want to work.
That work might end up being more creative work and less "flipping burgers because if I don't take this job I will starve and die" work.