My wife is very rule oriented, she likes to understand what her place is, and make sure she is living up to the explicit and implicit (with a limit only of her vivid imagination) tasks in order to fulfill her role, as long as she understands the reason for the rule.

I am much more chaotic and didn't give a fuck about rules for a long time because its all external and alienated. But as I've gotten older, I've developed an ethics, not morality, that if anything is much stricter than what is "necessary." But my own ethics have, to the best of my ability, good reasonable justifications, with a high standard for logical consistency and self growth and actualization, whereas I still see those externalized rules, especially the ones that seem to undergird the logic of private property, oppression, imperialism, patriarchy, racism; to still be external and alienating, if not just corrosive to the human spirit.

My ethics compel me to.do things that others wouldn't dare, their morality compels them to do things that I can't even comprehend. Its like no matter what the rules are, I'll always find damn good reasons to be feisty. This of course plays beautifully into my afore mentioned rejection dysphoria which isn't chronic but still acute; and comes on strong in moments of self assessment of just these dynamics.

Its almost like people are impossibly complicated, but maybe that's just me

I'm an elder millennial, practically an x-er, so its my first time seeing some of these terms.

Some of this stuff, like time blindness, yeah I get that and am medicated for it. Hours just fall off for me. Rejection sensitive dysphoria? Yeah that's another one I've identified in myself and others but didn't know the term for. I can't say I have it all the time but sometimes it can feel quite acute.

But justice sensitivity? Like, what does it even mean to be NT? It's just going along and not giving a shit about anything except what is immediately in front of you? Is this why I feel like I don't relate to a lot of people?do people just like not change in a conscious way, or even think? Why does the concept of justice even exist if it is only important to a minority of non NT people? I find this incredibly strange. And I say this as someone who probably is justice sensitive, so much so that politics is a big part of my life, but then most of my friends and non-work relations are as well.

Look at mister "Sometimes I write programs that have more than a single niche function" over here

This is a post about growing disappointment with Python

You have to think about contradictions that occur, not like static things, when analyzing conflicts like this. The US military is strong, but they aren't like completely cold blooded thugs. Some are, you'll have that anywhere, but how revolutions are often won is the military breaks in half, and one side goes over to the revolutionary forces. See the people with the most like conscience (sorry its not very scientific here, but its the best word to describe), will defect first and early, which creates problems in the ranks with disunity and lowering morale. The generals and leaders will become extremely harsh on the military which just causes more defections as people start to escape their declining conditions, along with their conscience, which makes the leaders crack down harder -- it creates a feedback loop that can fracture the entire military. Its happened many times. Turning a military against their own people is dangerous. It takes decades of otherizing and conditioning of the population to overwrite peoples basic humanity. Some people can be monstrous but some can't resist their own conscience.

You never know what could happen, especially in the core. And as other people have said, the US military actually losing is always possible. Talk to anyone in the military with logistical or admin or leadership jobs, and a lot of times you won't find the hyper jingoistic patriotism of the suburbs, you'll find healthy skepticism and tactical flexibility. In other words, the military are always aware that they could lose, so why should we think any different?

It all comes down to organization, tactics, and strategy.

Who can definitely be defeated with numbers and organization

James Woods has an IQ of 195 you see. You can tell because he says that's his IQ

Homie fell off after Videodrome

Oh shit, you see I was reading the instructions upside down, and the "6" was actually a "9", so you see all our calculations were off by three or a factor of three, then I dropped my pen in the kitchenaid mixer that was making dough so the pizza crusts are dark blue and taste like a whiff of ozone, not to mention I left my cardkey that I need to get into the government building where I work at my friend Liza's house when she had an Amway party, and Liza has these little yippy dogs, and they're so cute but they're always chewing stuff, and wouldn't you know it they got ahold of my cardkey and chewed it all up, so now I have to wait a week until security clears me for a new card and until then I have to sign in at the front gate which adds like 6 minutes to my morning every day, and anyway it was such a mess in the kitchen, let me tell you! Anyway that's why you don't have healthcare and its now legal to pay you in dogfood, god Trump is such a tyrant I swear

Thank you for the considerate response.

You might be more well equipped for Marx than you think. The Tao the Ching, and the I Ching are both works of dialectical philosophy. Marxism, when applied correctly, is a fusion of empirical materialism and dialectics. Whenever people new to Marxism struggle with his method, I always recommend the Tao te Ching. People raised with western rational model, like us, struggle with contradiction in our reasoning. Except when it affects our lives directly, our minds reject it. The Tao teaches us to stay with the contradictions, which is what is needed to perform a dialectical analysis, since dialectics is the logic of change, progression, and synthesis, relation and contradiction.

This along with the mention of Marcus Aurelius reminds me of when I first started trying to educate myself, and came across the work of Nick Taleb. Its a bit pitched to the right for my taste these days (although his sterling advice, "don't be a sucker" is as good advice as you'll ever get,) but at the time it is what got me into studying philosophy, Meditations was the second philosophy book I ever read. I don't consider myself a stoic, but I loved that book at one time, as well as the Enchirideon by Epictetus.

Your claim of an imbalance in power between the workers and owners is at least an acknowledgement of Marx's theories. Maybe you like that balance, lots of people have a fetish for "balance of powers" and maybe there's something to that. Except the balance can't be achieved, it always prefers the owners and requires historical amounts of civil unrest to make any reluctant progressive change at all.

I don't appreciate being told that I'm in a cult, a cult that never existed, and certainly Marx never started one. Its dishonest, but I guess you picked it up somewhere. I def didn't know what Marx was about before I studied him. Buy now if I don't know an author, I don't have to pretend I'm smart or know something I don't, I just say I don't know and if I am interested then I study them. Very simple and honest.

Here's the thing they won't tell you about Marx: when you're a worker and you learn to read him, because he's difficult, you realize that he confirms your experience as a worker and goes deeper. He proves what we suspect but that everyone tells us isn't true. He removes doubt and provides a way forward --

-- and then you study the history of the USSR and other 20th century socialist experiments and the doubt comes back. But Marx was, hands down, the greatest intellectual of the 19th century and should be read and studied by all. Not to indoctrinate into a cult, but to actually open peoples minds to what is possible, and how class rule, throughout history, has worked tirelessly to alienate us from our selves and each other. Capitalism is just the latest and greatest form of class rule.

But a better world is possible!

Clearly you've never read Marx in any meaningful way, which is unfortunate. If you think Marx is a "reductionist model" then you are cleanly, plainly, completely mistaken. Das Capital isn't a pamphlet, its 4 unfinished volumes.

Your anti intellectualism is a sad affair, but propaganda is a hell of a drug. I love being told by people who haven't studied Marx what he is all about. Do you also have strong opinions on Augustine, Hegel, Kant or Descartes? Have you ever read them?

Balance of power

What power? The power of workers? You might have more Marxist ideas than you think.

Its not a flaw, its working as planned. But yeah, our "market solutions", basically any problem created by capitalism just gets exploited for profit. Even when the economy crashes its actually a good thing for the very rich, as it " disciplines" labor, moves people down and out of the middle class which lowers wages systematically, takes out a few competitors, etc.,

Things you hate? How can it be explained as capitalism if you won't say what it is.

You act like there was never a guy named Karl Marx who proved this stuff, and debunked many myths about the economy, like 150+ years ago. It isn't just a random thing like a superstition. In fact believing capitalism isnt responsible is almost a superstition.

Wages are flat while production has skyrocketed the last 50 years, a little longer than I've been alive. The system produces a few rich people at one end and a bunch of poor people at the other, that's what it is meant to do, it's what it does. It isn't just an economic system, its the state and media as well.

People aren't just blaming all their problems on capitalism like some petulant child. There are causes that are very clear and some more hidden, but its no secret and hasn't been for a pretty long time.

Expensive lesson, try not being a sucker next time.

"Oh no my shitty car depreciated" god who would have guessed