StrayCatFrump

Yes. My company decided to shut down the local office to save money (kept by the bosses rather than being distributed to us, of course). So some of us became remote indefinitely.

Generally, I love it. I can "commute" in my PJs, and avoid spewing a lot of carbon into the climate just to ship around my sack of flesh. I can take breaks throughout the day to tend my garden, and play music to help myself think. I don't have to worry about packing a lunch, or wasting time and money and social energy eating out in the middle of the day. Hell, I can go take a nap when I don't have any meetings scheduled and feel the need.

However, it does take its toll. Not having a direct, face-to-face, human connection with folks throughout the day harms the associations that build solidarity. And finding ways to do one-on-ones and continue organizing the workplace is proving next to impossible. So I'm honestly not sure it is worth it at this stage of labor struggle. In a more ideal world—once we've won a few crucial victories over capital (and perhaps state)—I see no reason why many of us couldn't work from home, and even move those jobs that require more direct, physical labor closer to those homes.

It's good...so long as we follow the advice of that last section: "Prosecute Them All". If it's used instead to distract from the ongoing crimes of other parties and other politicians—such as the fascist currently at the helm—then I couldn't care less, and I think we shouldn't allow ourselves to be distracted by it while there are much more important things to focus on.

The worst of Trump's crimes—the ones that did serious, material harm to working-class people—aren't being touched by this, just as they weren't touched by the farcical impeachments the Democrats facilitated. And that's because they, themselves, are happily engaged in the same crimes, as they have been all along.

Sure, bring out your popcorn or whatever when you're relaxing at home and have nothing better to worry about. But during the day, put all the energy you can into what we MUST do to turn things around: put an end to state warfare, ongoing climate destruction, and the state violence and repression that keeps us from making progress on everything else.

Also:

And that brings us to the real double standard here. Trying to overturn an American election is the kind of crime the Justice Department takes seriously. Extrajudicially slaughtering scary Muslims in a foreign country, even ones with US citizenship, is not.

Attacks carried out on marginalized communities—carried out just like the Jan 6 Washington DC attack was, but in cities and towns everywhere else on a monthly basis at least—also are not taken seriously. Jan 6 was one of MANY, but only when the halls of power see a tiny inkling of a (pretty pathetic) threat does it matter to politicians and their liberal fans. Not okay.

EDIT: sigh. Blockquotes broken by some Lemmy update.

Kshama spitting truth! Someone's fighting to improve material conditions for the working class here, and it sure as fuck ain't the Democrats (or Republicans, but that's obvious)!

That's funny, because it literally does work in many places. You might want to refine your idea of how everything works, since you are simply wrong. 🤷

No, traditions and customs aren't laws. Sorry, but that's some big-brained liberal nonsense, designed as apologetic propaganda for the legal injustice system. IMO Peter Gelderloos provides a pretty good functional definition:

Anarchists take an entirely different view of the problems that authoritarian societies place within the framework of crime and punishment. A crime is the violation of a written law, and laws are imposed by elite bodies. In the final instance, the question is not whether someone is hurting others but whether she is disobeying the orders of the elite. As a response to crime, punishment creates hierarchies of morality and power between the criminal and the dispensers of justice. It denies the criminal the resources he may need to reintegrate into the community and to stop hurting others.

In an empowered society, people do not need written laws; they have the power to determine whether someone is preventing them from fulfilling their needs, and can call on their peers for help resolving conflicts. In this view, the problem is not crime, but social harm — actions such as assault and drunk driving that actually hurt other people. This paradigm does away with the category of victimless crime, and reveals the absurdity of protecting the property rights of privileged people over the survival needs of others. The outrages typical of capitalist justice, such as arresting the hungry for stealing from the wealthy, would not be possible in a needs-based paradigm.

The existence of law is 100% a bad thing, even if sometimes some not-awful stuff happens to be encoded into it (generally due to concessions made by the powerful to prevent revolt over the rest of their oppressive garbage).

EDIT: Not sure if people realize, but the criticism is addressed toward the idiot liberal lawyer who's a guest at the beginning, not toward Abi's video overall, which is generally much better than his tripe.

"One man's wild dream." Bleh. Flowery words for yet another bunk propertarian sea-steading project. I mean, he was literally planning to mine the shit out of the ocean floor and sell away more of the ecosystem to the capitalist market in order to create his Utopia. At least there was some acknowledgment of that at the very end.

Very glad the opportunistic scientific exploration happened along with it, though.

Fair enough. Heh. Good luck with it!

Sure thing. Edited to add a paragraph at the end about Raddit itself.

You should probably find another Lemmy instance. That makes it easier to distance yourself from stuff like that when it happens.

In IDK like the 2015-2017 timeframe some really edgy people started taking over in /r/metanarchism (the private sub where moderation decisions are made for /r/Anarchism). They formed a clique—a cult, really—and managed to force out anyone else who weren't part of it, totally ignoring even the rules they'd setup themselves for how people were to be banned. Their notion was basically that you had to subscribe to and promote the most violent possible solutions to every situation, and if you didn't jump on board enthusiastically, you weren't a "real anarchist". It was basically the most dark aesthetics of anarchism without any of the actual philosophy.

There were whole drama wars about it, where the people they banned congregated in /r/LeftWithoutEdge, /r/AnarchismOnline, and other subs, and in response the edge cult setup /r/LeftWithSharpEdge, trolled those subs their victims fled to, and harassed people with things like bloody cannibalism fantasies about their victims. Those are the folks still moderating in /r/Anarchism, and they have at least a couple moderators in subs like /r/LateStageCapitalism as well.

One of the most prolific and obsessed trolls is the guy who setup Raddit. He was caught having whole conversation trees with himself in order to fake participation on the site and set its tone. A number of times he declared he was "stepping back" from moderating it and would just run the server...and then didn't.

Given the horrendous history of /r/Anarchism's moderation and the fact that Raddle is a direct continuation of that garbage, I'd say it's both no surprise and no loss. Let them go honeypot and jackboot themselves into oblivion. The unfortunate thing, of course, is that they've controlled a forum with a very obvious name for half a decade, and can shepherd a lot of unknowing users into their cesspit with them. But there's probably not a lot that can be done about that.

to transition people from conservative to liberal, and liberal to leftist, we have to spoon feed.

Not true. People don't undergo ideological shifts simply from running into and watching some online video. They do so after real life experiences that affect them materially. For example, they are fired in a clearly unjust fashion by a boss, violently attacked, arrested, helped by a mutual aid project, etc. And then they are ready to learn whether it's in a dribble or a flood.

Also, it is false that conservative liberals need to go through some progressive liberal phase before becoming leftists. If anything, becoming a progressive liberal tends to stick them right there, trusting institutions of capital and state, and that's the end. I think you've been listening far too much to streamers like the guy in the OP on things like this.