both social murder and murder are bad imo
the cop otoh, different calculation there
So you're ok with the cop getting got, but not the CEO? Why? The biggest reason it's good when cops die is because of the role they play in protecting capital. This CEO is capital.
It's a perfectly valid journalistic choice.
The temporary raising of albedo from eruptions is not relevant since it does not last, it doesn't exist on the relevant time scales. Volcanic cooling does happen (even in recent recorded history!) but it's very short-lived. Any aerosols injected into the atmosphere by volcanism (what is what causes the cooling) typically only lasts for a few years, as a general rule, not more than a decade, while warming from greenhouse gases is persistent and cumulative. It's not something that is worth mentioning as any kind of genuine mitigating factor. Just like the people hoping that nuclear winter from another world war would offset climate change. It won't, it just makes things even more chaotic on a short time scale without actually helping the problem at all on any time scale that matters.
A "volcanic ice age" would be short, maybe nasty, catastrophic for agriculture and civilization, but it would not help us, it wouldn't do anything to solve the underlying problem of anthropogenic warming. Once the aerosols clear, the warming resumes, but now with added CO2 from the eruptions. So yeah, perfectly appropriate that the article doesn't go into that.
(edit: changed the word "lowering" to "raising" which is what I meant - I'm tired.)
TBH I don't feel like I know enough about the details to be anything but agnostic at this point, I just know I would not be surprised in the least if the U.S. military (usually via Ft. Detrick) origin theory did turn out to be real. There are some users here who I respect that do find it very plausible or even likely, and that alone is enough for me to not want it relegated to "a theory we do not entertain at hexbear." I share your suspicions. I'd also be fine to see the theory totally shot down. But I can't help but hate the idea of there being an official hexbear line of flat denial, you know?
It's a joke from a bit account. Don't worry about it, I'm not up on it enough to quite get it either.
Well... 
Earth becoming more like Venus is an inevitability in the high hundreds of millions of years (and for scale, multicellular life has been around for roughly 5-600M years, with the more than 3 billion before that just being simple single-celled prokaryotic life), but that is completely independent of anthropogenic climate change, it is because of the expansion of the sun towards it's red giant phase. In terms of being habitable to life, Earth is easily past the half-way mark already, no matter what. However, that is far enough out that it doesn't bear worrying about and isn't something we can have any sort of impact on.
That said, the climate change that we as a species are causing right now could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect on much shorter time scales. The fact is, there have been times in Earth's history where it has been so hot that complex life could mostly only survive at the poles (with the equator being a death zone to all but simple, single-cellular extremophiles) and there have been times where Earth was encased almost entirely in ice except perhaps at the equators - not just our usual conception of an ice age, but "snowball earth," and this was likely caused by certain forms of simple life, fascinatingly enough. The feedback loops we are triggering right now have a potential to drastically change the composition of the atmosphere on a far shorter timescale, one in which we are talking about an end to most complex life (obviously ourselves included). It was almost certainly volcanism that caused Venus to go from a mostly habitable planet to the completely, utterly inhospitable world it is. Volcanism has also been responsible for extreme heat and mass extinctions on Earth, but obviously it never tipped over into Venus-like territory. The thing is, right now we're changing the atmosphere at a rate far faster than volcanism has in the past! And rate of change matters a lot with this kind of thing. I'm repeating myself, but again, it is not a certainty but it is a possibility that anthropogenic climate change could hit tipping points that Venus-ifies Earth on a much shorter, nearer term than anything relating to the expansion of the sun, on time scales that are worth worrying about (if we value humanity as a whole), and is the sort of thing we can have an impact on.
Eh ltv isn't really Marx's and if it were it would be one of his many significant contributions to various fields.
Marx may not have been the first theorist to come up with it, but the LToV is still foundational to most of the economic theory that did have its origin in his work. Furthermore, Marx did make contributions to the LToV itself, and in that sense it is one of his significant contributions to various fields.
It'd still be reasonable to call yourself a Marxist if you ascribe to other parts of his framework, especially in specific academic contexts. And in revolutionary contexts I doubt most non-academic revolutionaries fully understand the mechanisms laid out in Capital, so it seems inconsequential really.
A person doesn't need to fully understand evolution by natural selection to consider themselves a Darwinist (biologically speaking, obviously I'm not talking about social Darwinism here). But if they reject evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the diversity of species, then they are not Darwinists. Similarly, you don't have to be able to explain the LToV let alone its nitty-gritty details, but if you claim that the theory is false, you probably shouldn't be calling yourself a Marxist revolutionary.
Class analysis doesn't inherently require ltv either.
Class analysis requires a mechanism for how one class exploits another economically, a mechanism that the LToV provides.
I do think ltv makes more sense than modern models, but Marx was basically using bourgeois theory to critique itself,
And that critique is what extended it beyond being merely bourgeois theory.
and arguably the same can be done using the more abstract modern models.
Maybe so. But are those models refutations of the LToV or elaborations on it? In either case, do you have examples?
Same, only I do it once every few months but the fasts are longer. Water fasting for a week+, when I'm not too depressed to make the commitment in the first place, does wonders for depression and anxiety. And weight. And general sense of well-being. There's good reason so many religions incorporate fasting as a spiritual practice. But rich bourgsie fucks will take, twist, and ruin anything cool like that, making it trite and part of their self-absorbed narcissism. Just like the silicon valley techbros did with psychedelics like DMT.
They already have been: https://hexbear.net/comment/4091576
Edit: Sorry, I'm catching up by reading from earlier in the news mega towards the newer stuff. I didn't see you had posted another comment later than the above one saying you didn't want to see this stuff. Apologies, comrade.
This is exactly my experience too. It's very similar to the issue I always have with mindfulness practices. I can focus on a particular thought or image, or even just "observe" my inner monologue for the smallest fraction of a second, but then it's right back to the noise of uncontrolled thoughts. Just like you said, I can picture the apple just fine, even in extreme detail, but as soon as I do, it vanishes again and I have to reimagine it anew.
I've likened it to being like a game of Hot Potato my brain unintentionally plays with itself. The same instant I've grasped the potato (or apple in this case) it's tossed away again. It's not hard to catch it again after I toss it, but I can't help but toss it as soon as I do.
I mean yeah, but it wasn't the hair sniffing creepiness and granddaughter lip kissing that really necessitated the killing of #MeToo, though it's a small part of it. There's the whole thing about how he SA'd his office assistant that no one ever talks about now.
I'm trying to find it again but all I'm getting are endless parody posts lol
https://hexbear.net/post/263190
Not quite the original thread, but it's the post that went up to say that the original post was in poor taste, which is the mark of any good struggle session anyway.
It can be hard to find stuff around here because The Creator likes to do a lot of deleting.
Well let's dissect this. To you it's the "strapping on a deadly weapon in defense of the state/property that means you're accepting the risk of getting got." (Emphasis mine). I think you'd agree it's not so much physical act of strapping a weapon that really matters but the accepting of the risk that to you makes a person an acceptable target or not. In your eyes, the difference between combatant and civilian (since you used that word "civilian" to describe the CEO, as set apart from the cop) is whether they've "accepted risk." First of all, cops don't accept the risk. They are the most risk-averse motherfuckers you will ever meet. It's why they are vastly more likely to die of a heart attack, or covid, or fucking suicide than "on line of duty" and why they protect their own with immediate lethal force against even a relatively light threat, but do not use that same force for the protection of actual civilians, even ones presumably on their side. Cops are NOT accepting the risk either, they're just pretending to. But let's set that aside because since you were ok with what happened to the cop, what's really relevant here is your uncomfortability with the killing of the CEO.
So we'll take it as a given (though it's not actually true) that cops are accepting the risk when they strap up, that they are no longer "civilians," and we'll also assume (because it's true) that the CEO was not expecting or accepting any risk. But that is literally the fucking problem we are up against with fighting capital! These actual villains, the people who maintain and perpetuate the class war, literally ruling over the system that prevents a world where everyone's basic needs are met, they can (and do) do things that cause the death and immiseration of millions of people but they do so without any expectation or acceptance of a possibility that they themselves may face consequences let alone be harmed as a result of their crimes, the horrors they inflict on their fellow humans. They didn't "accept any risk" because they have wrapped themselves up in their stolen wealth, protected themselves with layer upon layer that insulates them from any consequences for what they do. The cops who you say did accept the risk, are but one of those layers. Ah, how nice it is for the bourgeoisie to murder with impunity without having to "accept any risk" that someone will do a fraction to them of what they do to others every day. So horrifically privileged to be able to commit mass murder all day (as long as it's via slow violence, since that's ok with liberals!) and then go home and take a hot bath, drink some wine before dozing off to sleep peacefully in their villas or mansions without even a fleeting thought that one of their victims might see the reality of the situation, decide to sacrifice their own broken life for a chance at justice, and then somehow get past all the CEO's layers of security - layers of security both in the literal sense and in terms of how well trained society is to grant them de-facto immunity, the same way you yourself are trained.
@XxFemboy_Stalin_420_69xX@hexbear.net already touched on this, but how about an analogy. Let's say there's a battlefield where soldiers are dying by the thousands at the behest of their commanding officers, a few ranks (i.e. layers of abstraction and layers of protection) up from the soldiers, the generals. Let's go ahead and make them Nazis or better yet IDF just so the point is nice and clear and so it is also clear that the battle is asymmetrical, with all the technology and manufactured "law" on their side. Those officers presiding over the slaughter do not expect to die. They are not "accepting any risk" as they hang back, hundreds of miles, perhaps even a continent away from the fighting. Maybe they're even at home with their shoes off. But they are responsible for the wiping out of countless working class lives, obviously the resistance fighters who they are intending to kill, but also they're fine sending their own soldiers to die as well, so long as it's not too many such that a layer of protection is lost for the generals. By your logic, it's fine if someone, even someone coincidentally uncaring about the sides in this conflict, kills some soldiers (cops) but not if he broke in that general's house and offed him. You would be uncomfortable with celebrating that. It's like those libified action movies where the hero kills scores of goons working for the bad guy, but then when it comes time to kill the bad guy, the hero decides to take the higher road and spare the bad guy's life. No. That's bullshit. These people, the warhawk generals of the analogy, and the CEO in this real life incident, they are the ones who deserve a bullet (or worse) far more than any of the soldiers/cops (who deserve it as well). And they still deserve it no matter how they get it, even if it's some chud who agrees with them on most of their points but goes on a sprees and randomly does it.
I'm also not fully convinced of the story we're being told and that this was random, I am amenable to the possibility that she was in fact the target, but that's beside the point. It is unambiguously good that she died. Anyone uncomfortable with that either does not understand some very fundamental truths about class and the role of CEOs in the murder of countless working class individuals, or they don't actually care about those murdered working class individuals, or they are simply not a leftist and actually stand to defend the bourgeoisie against the repercussions for their crimes against working class people. Of course those aren't mutually exclusive, someone "uncomfortable" with it could be all three of those things.
It was still "random violence" that killed the cop, and you were ok with that. It is not the randomness that you have a problem with. It is what you already confessed to above: that the CEO wasn't "accepting any risk." But that is not an excuse and if anything is all the more another reason that CEOs should die by any means because what grotesque cowardice it is to commit mass social murder but only do it because you think there is no risk for doing so.
Like I said, I'm not sure that's even true. It might be, but it's beside the point because you were ok with the cop getting killed but the cop was also not "the target."
There's some goalpost shifting going on here because this was initially about you being "uncomfortable" with the rest of us cheering on the death of the CEO. There actually are some valid reasons not to "support" adventurism (I actually go against the hexbear grain here and think that in a world where those who organize are frequently murdered before they are able to accomplish anything, adventurism sometimes becomes the only way for some people to fight back in a way that at least brings about a modicum of justice - but that's for another post). That's not your issue with it though. You gave that away when you said it was ok, that it was a more acceptable calculus, for the cop to die. You really are seeing this CEO as an innocent civilian (the latter word being one you even used) rather than the high ranking officer that they are.
Or just what @Infamousblt@hexbear.net and @Kuori@hexbear.net already said more succinctly with fewer words.