What do you think self discipline is? Like what does it mean for someone to have more or less of it? How could you tell?

I ask because to me it’s executive function. which had a physiological basis and varies based on physiological state. So someone without a well functioning executive function system’s best would look kinda arse to someone who had a functional one.

OP have you considered that the state you’re seeing them in is them trying their best?

Best isn’t static right, like when I run some sometimes my best is wheezing and throwing up through 5 km in 50 minutes because I’m hungover and sleep deprived, sometimes it’s getting shoes on and stepping outside before deciding to quit, and sometimes it’s nailing a pb on a 15 km run and only cutting it short because I have responsibilities and shit.

You just don’t know what’s going on in someone’s life. I am diagnoses adhd and have been undergoing treatment for 15 years. Mostly I seem like a kinda lazy spinster with too many hobbies and an untidy yard; sometimes I’m a whirl of activity and achievement; and other times I spend 3 weeks paralysed on the couch, absolutely wracked with guilt and self loathing, pleading for my brain to just give me enough of anything to feed myself for the first time in 3 days while my head pounds from dehydration and I want to peal my skin off for how dirty and uncomfortable it is.

Every moment is me trying my best. I can’t imagine not extending the courtesy of that belief to everyone else.

I don’t think most people enjoy feeling like a burden, judged as lazy, or living in filth and failing to achieve their goals.

Usually for someone to smoke weed all day and play video games or w/e without maintaining hygiene and health something has to be seriously wrong. Animals not maintaining themselves is like the biggest warning sign that something is wrong.

To simplify that as ‘So and so lacks self discipline’ is moronic. Maybe they claim they have adhd and they don’t but something is fucking wrong with a brain in that state and they need help.

Gimble vice and a fleshlight?

It’s a book about non monogamy and how to practice it in a considerate and sensitive manner.

Look ultimately words mean what they mean in the context that they’re spoken but broadly neoliberalism is highly socially permissive. Provided, that is, one does this as a responsible member of the capitalist economy and doesn’t disrupt the market.

Like you can have neoliberals that love trans kids, celebrate pride, want more black female drone pilots etc. It is, however, not a neoliberal position say compare the number of vacant properties to the number of homeless people and suggest that perhaps we should just take the unused houses and give them to homeless people? That would violate the principles of private property and free markets. After all: what freedom does one have if you can’t watch someone freeze to death on the doorstep of your vacant investment?

If your friends think that freedom to do that is utterly absurd and a society which defends that is fundamentally rotten then they are not liberals in the academic sense, however their substantially more leftist stance may be called liberalism in the political context you find yourselves in.

To clarify my question. What do you mean ‘actually liberal’ ideologies?

Like what are their thoughts on monetarism?private property? free association? private entities in markets? Debt and paying it, both private and state held?

If they think that the state should provide the means of subsistence of the entire populus, that property should in general be held in common and private property is not sacred, that government entities in a market are often more effective than private and/or that business should be heavily regulated to serve common good, that debts should be cancelled when it is not realistic or fair to pay them etc. Or perhaps even further afield positions like questioning nation States, police, militaries and boarders… well, then they are not in fact liberals haha.

What do they see as different between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly a post-Keynesian revitalisation of classical liberal economic positions updated with modern banking practices and globalisation.

… everyone? hence my use of broadly? It has complete and utter ideological hegemony since like the 70s. If you study economics you study neoliberal economics and they don’t even bother specifying. All major political parties in the anglosphere and most of western Europe follow neoliberal ideology, even the green-left is largely neoliberal. There are basically no classical liberals left.

I think I misunderstood you.

See my other comment for why I think freedom is sort of a useless thing to frame anything around. At least without further clarification.

Reactionary ideologies are incoherent.

I think it’s tempting to try and be pithy but freedom is complicated. For some people freedom is an absolute, do what you want when you want. For some it is about theoretical possibilities, for example if you ask if people are free to quit there job the answer heavily depends on how someone balances theory vs practice. Others take a practical lens, freedom only counts if it’s plausible to do.

Sometimes freedom is about ideals. you are free to read all the political theory you like, you umm wont because it’s boring but if someone threatened that would you be upset? At other junctures freedom because pragmatic, “what use is freedom to read if I don’t have freedom to eat? I’ll trade one for the other” someone might say.

Some people rate permissions more than restrictions, some the opposite.

I don’t think it’s a concept we can really pin down. Everyone has their own interpretation and it’s not universally values: much as dominant ideologies often insist it is, the rise of fascism should hint that others care much less about it.

Sigh, I’ll wade into this river of shit.

Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism, which is an ideological descendant from classical liberalism. This ideology positions itself as being broadly in favour of individual freedom within a rather tight definition of freedom. Namely liberals are concerned with the ability of people to read what they like, own what they like, marry whomever they like and so on provided they do this inside of a system of capitalist free market exchange.

Modern liberalism tends to frown on heavy government intervention in market affairs, which they see as representing the free (and thus good) exchange of goods between individuals. They also tend to be broadly in favour of the militaristic western global hegemony.

Criticism of this attitude comes from 2 places.

1. too much freedom.

2. not enough freedom.

(1) is people that want women bound up in the kitchen and walk around with an odd gait that makes you remember Indiana Jones films

(2) are people (I’m in this camp) who see liberalism as a weak ideological position that favours stability over justice and, in so doing, ignores the suffering of billions.

Wrong!

No frotting the electricity

You should probably know that historically societies collapsing has typically resulted in improved health of the lower classes as judged by skeletons in the archeological record.

We should not really understand societies collapsing as a violent or spectacular thing. It’s usually just growth slowing, people move away, the ability of states to enforce taxes and provide services weakens and people work out their own stuff.

I’m not saying society is collapsing, just that if it does it’ll probably look more like declining birthrates and movement away from cities and advanced manufacturing to more agrarian lifestyle. Also that for the poor and downtrodden this will probably, on average, be an improvement.

I’ve been called a tankie for just trying to be clear about what Marxism actually is. I would say I’m sympathetic to Marxists but not one. Having far stronger anarchist sympathies.

But you know, being critical of the usa or saying anything remotely positive about China/the ussr means you are either a Russian bot/op or a tankie.

I would quibble here and say that torture is actually an incredibly civilised act. I mean this not as an endorsement, but rather in the sense that only highly ‘civilised’ societies appear to have every carried out systematic torture. It seems to require a great deal of centralised, bureaucratic control in order to prevent instincts like empathy from preventing it.

It’s also worth pointing out that torture, as defined in a UN convention that is pretty broadly ratified is much broader than we normally think of it. It is defined as follows:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Which I think is food for thought. Portrail of torture is incredibly systemic in media, and I think we are numbed to it a great deal although I don’t know which way causality goes there. How many of you have seen cops handling someone roughly with the intent to hurt them or intimidating someone to make them pliable as routine ‘justice’? That is literally torture by a convention that it is highly likely the country they work for has ratified.

Lots of people are wrong. The stuff in Nair attacks sulfur bridges in keratine. This makes it physically fragile so you can scrape it off.

It doesn’t dissolve the keratin though.

In theory you could break it into lots of small pieces by say pointing a water jet down the drain (or plunging or whatever) after treatment. Whether this is enough to loosen it will have a lot to do with other stuff in the drain/geometry/penetration depth. It may just make a gel that plugs the drain.

You topped my joke so hard you’re in orbit. Bra-fucking-vo, I’m in stitches.