This fits in with what happens in the Bible.

I don’t get where do the “regular” balloon danglers come from… Do they just choose to go up with a balloon?

The balloons are stories right? Like it’s a visual metaphor… But then does that mean people are only reading one story per person in the entire world?

How did people end up in the bog? Did they just let go of a story they didn’t like? So are the danglers are people writing stories rather than reading them, and the danglers are the authors?

That makes sense… A comic book author writing about an aggrandised version of themselves. That checks out from my experience hanging out with authors… But they don’t give away or latch on to each others stories that I’ve seen, that doesn’t seem common.

Where do the danglers come from again? Because the guy constructing the balloon wasn’t dangling from it… Are the green people minions in some reading dimension?

I don’t think I really get the metaphor. Maybe it’s just not supposed to be examined. Lots of fiction collapses under examination.

This is why you don’t rig a fair system… Because your ‘rig’ may one day be used against you.

It’s not a question of class, it’s a question of labour vs motivation/reward.

This still has a behaviouralist slant though, and perhaps that’s because I find the concept of unalienated labour hard to envision the practicalities/pragmatics of. Perhaps due to having never seen such a thing (having always lived under Capitalism).

I had none of the misapprehensions you’ve assumed I had, and was not making any case against Marx (but against ideology instead). That said, maybe someone else will read your comment and understand more about Marx.

Ideology does that to people. I don’t think Marx liked ideology, and I believe he said that he’s not a Marxist.

He also played the stock market.

I wonder whether Israel asking their Christian churches to pay taxes nation wide will change anything, highlight the decay of Israel-US relations.

All transitions to a new system are temporarily vulnerable to becoming one party, or one person dictatorships.

(there’s a video on YouTube called “rules for rulers” that explains this more).

This is a classier version of how lobotomy started as a procedure… It was pioneered by a scam artist who wanted to be a doctor, and his employee who was a vet. A large amount of his practice was honed being hired to make asylum patients quiet and more docile. Gruesome stuff… And being untrained he was completely unsanitary about it.

They agree to trade the surplus value they create in order to have a job, and receive a ratio of that surplus value instead. This is because they know they haven’t the capital, nor the preparation to do otherwise.

If they owned the means of production, they probably wouldn’t work so hard as they’d have a relatively larger slice of the pie.

This means the “efficiency of Capitalism” comes from the exploitation of workers. It it only because the full surplus value is kept from them, and they have a knowledge that they can be fired, or have their lives made difficult by “superiors” that they can be worked so hard (aka “efficiently”).

Finding a better balance or third way structure, would require finding a way to motivate people, whilst also rewarding them AND not exploiting them.

Perhaps workers could be arranged to keep each other in check. Perhaps there’s some other structures that facilitate freedom, a lack of alienation or exploration, whilst retaining motivation… That’s what’s needed… Comfortable, unalienated labor, that is desirable, and efficiently structured.

deleted by creator

Most countries are corrupt backwards dictatorships… So that might be the best standard to use.

Or through blackmail.

Why is she receiving the Freedom Medal of Valor?

I skip DS9 mirror episode specifically because I can’t stand Kira’s mirror self.

The premise of this image is appealing to the “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, aka: After therefore because of - mistaking a temporal relationship for a causal one.

…and if course, correlation doesn’t prove causation.

I wonder how old the comic is.

I see clearly I’m not going to get through to you, and that for whatever reason you believe I’ve written an argument centred around maths and resources, rather than trauma and life’s path.

Sorry your life circumstances require you to understand your mother’s compulsive pathology as being solely down to her being “a degenerate type” (a Hitlarian category). I’ll not discuss matters further with you, as I’m not your therapist.

Better luck communicating with what’s actually been written, and the point actually being made next time. All the best.

People who were randomly picked out of obscurity for their physical prowess as if by a luck of the draw (whether you think that’s the draw of catching that particular recruiter on that particular day, or the genetic lottery) - are then going to take a sympathetic view of the chaos and the gamble of life with wealth they perhaps feel was bestowed upon them by luck of the draw and hence take an “easy come, easy go” attitude towards…

…and you think that’s “degenerate” rather than considering the individual who has gone through a similar process to their own success, on top of usually being a young person when handed that life style and usually it’s a lifestyle that requires risk taking bravado to be successful in anyways.

… you’re going to take all those hidden lessons in their narrative, that big wins come from luck of the draw, that risking it all is part of “the game” they’re playing in life, and that they even when young, don’t have to seek wiser counsel because they richer than their parents at a young age… Take all that and reduce it down to “theys just degenerate”… Like your not even going to consider that maybe they’re just laying down a message life has been sending them sociologically…

…well, I don’t think much of that viewpoint, that anything is as simple as stamping someone “a degenerate type” and moving on. Pathology has the word “path” in it for a reason.

Follow up consideration; should fantasies be questioned at all, and if so:

Is this the flip side of being a closet traditionalist who wants to be cared for and to serve as someone’s wife, or rather, perhaps you should detail the other (emotional) parts of the life you’re talking about… What would be ideal about ‘the rest’ of the relationship.

…how does it differ from a loving and equal relationship that’s about sharing, consent, sensitivity, and mutual pleasure?

Is your fantasy of wanting to be dominated, one you actually want to be real, or is it best as a horny fantasy that should stay as such?

Do you think a fantasy character would have personality flaws that would damage your relationship outside of the sex? Would someone capable of doing such have personal issues that might manifest in other ways… And how much of this is really about your fears of society as an imposing force you cannot control in a way that you find self-actualising.

Do you think a different version of you would have different fantasies, and how different would your choices and views on life would you (and society) have to be to have different fantasies?

Are your fantasies, sociologically and psychologically situated in a way that you can affect? Or do you believe them to be a permanent aspect intrinsic to who you must be?

What sort of life security and society would you need to be the dominating figure, vs the submissive figure?