I’ve officially said my goodbyes. It’s absolutely fucked over there. This is just one of many serious problems with Reddit. The CEO is tanking it harder than Musk tanked Twitter. He’s musk’d it.

Society is a really shitty simulation made by psychotic sadists. No “hacking” was necessarily required. We all agreed to it by doing nothing to actually stop it. Some people just agree more fervently than others. Can definitely be argued as a sort of stockholm syndrome.

I agree! Especially here in the US. Solarpunk has gigantic potential in the Americas overall. I’ve got big travel plans next year I’m already saving up for but I’ll definitely be finding my way to a convention somewhere in the relatively near future.

I fucking love Adam. I wondered where he went. Thanks!

Where was I to find the info on this? I’d like to go if another is held.

Update: I found the link for it at the bottom of the article. It’s a german event, also.

I agree. They’re not intrinsically related, there is a tiny overlap due to a schism in transhumanist thought. I consider myself a natural transhumanist. Usual transhumanism is entirely cyberpunk territory.

This is more specific to capitalism than just corporatism but I do agree with you.

I am constantly dumbfounded how many of the highly capitalist nations pretend to have such a focus on family when it’s so clear that they care so little about them. More time working = less time with your family. They also push for bigger families too, so that individual children receive even less attention. It’s so weird.

I missed this survey. I find the gender demographics intriguing. I’m unsure why this survey was so very male-dominated. That’s really something to ponder about. Is it an internet issue, or is it something about the ideology itself? Are women in some way being restricted from solarpunk thought? This is phenomena of note in leftism, as well. I find it very perplexing, especially considering the shared goal of equality in these ideologies. I cannot believe women wouldn’t be incredibly attracted to solarpunk, it can quite seriously be summed up with one word: care. If women aren’t at least equal in their interest in the ideology, it seems to me something is very wrong. Thanks for doing the survey though. Nice to see what’s going on in the community, statistically.

Extremely peculiar this got no likes. These are good media references. This whole platform is so damn weird.

Update: It’s gotta be the sense of humor.

I think it actually may be a human failing, because human rights have been iffy as hell for all of recorded civilization. This is why it is argued by some that robots could be superior and consider us as too errant to allow continued existence. Perhaps, having an exactly defined and unwavering moral code, actually will make them superior and also save our asses. It seems like the reason human rights keep being disrespected is that people kinda just do whatever they want, and it seems like half the time what they want is cruel or harmful. I think until we find a way to increase mass empathy, our species is definitely gonna keep harming itself until it (and probably everything else) goes extinct. I feel robots (actually existing) are kind of antithetical to empathy, especially under capitalism, especially while made of hazardous materials that require ripping up the earth. I do however think discussion and content of this subject really opens up the dialogue on rights of all intelligent beings and the definitions of intelligence itself and I find that very important. I think we should perhaps be at this time more focused towards expanding the rights of humans and animals before robots, though. Like, this subject is so “getting ahead of ourselves”, as Solarpunks, that it’s almost kinda funny. Strikes me more as Cyberpunk territory, really.

The best media I’ve seen for this concept is “Robots” and anyone interested in this subject for some reason should definitely give it a look. There’s also “I, Robot” and “Blade Runner”.

Yo, we can’t even recognize human rights, as a species. Good luck getting anyone to recognize bot rights - especially when those (at least in our current state of tech) directly interfere with human rights.

My phone, a cheap Moto, has survived probably around 50 drops and falling into a tub. After years it still holds charge fine and I’ve made and sorted through (probably) hundreds of thousands of files of content with it. My current computer has also survived a lot and lasted longer than more expensive ones I’ve had previously. It’s a cheap HP. I don’t know if this is exactly “solarpunk” but it’s technically low-footprint (comparative to industry standards) just because the tech lasts, even through hardship. I’ve also kept all my old tech and plan to recycle it after I’ve retrieved the data. Recycling is solarpunk, I think. I also have a vibrator that’s lasted years, takes only one triple A battery, still works great. I intend to get rechargeable batteries soon. Battery waste is icky and battery recycling is tricky (because they’re made of such hazardous materials). I’m hoping to get a solar roof installed but that’s gonna take quite a bit of time especially since my country doesn’t exactly have the greatest subsidies for residential solar.

Seems relevant /shrug

Speaking of ACP, the affordable connectivity program just recently got cut.

Along Came Pollen

I didn’t realize grass had reached such an advanced evolution. Obviously it must be exterminated. (/s)

I totally agree that “outside” protestors shouldn’t be considered any kind of reasoning for dismissing a movement. It does imply the movement is bigger than local or territorial lines and therefore should be taken more seriously than not. In regards to anti-national revolutionists, that’s actually a very specific point of pride, and it should be. We are all people regardless of the territorial lines we are forced into. If we can reach outside the scope of the nation, we have in a sense, beaten it. This is why I see internationalism, or as some say, globalism, to be a very important goal for all movements focused on human rights. We are more than just where we are on the Earth. Humanity is a connected species, and in my opinion, that does go beyond just tech and state structures. I feel that reactionary solidarity should not be dismissed, though. Class warfare, for example, has a certain level of necessity for movements against oppression. I do not disagree with oppressing the oppressor. I think it’s a tactic we’ve actually seen too little on the left and perhaps could explain some of the incrementalism we’ve seen so far. I am, however, an accelerationist. Personally, I feel the more I am fought, the more I can fight back - and I do think that’s really important to allow others on the left to utilize too. We must find ways to equal the playing field, and I think literally all forms of solidarity have their roles in that. I think to say we cannot alienate those that alienate us leaves us as the only ones alienated. Those that disregard the use of reactionary solidarity disregard the use of tactics used against us. This is actually a larger philosophical argument of pacifism. I like to call it the batman argument. You’re putting yourself on a moral high-ground that only hampers your effectiveness. The “bad guys” keep going and keep coming because they are not actually stopped. They are not, as some of the more intensive left likes to say, “stomped”. The right-wing stomps, and they also steal from us constantly. We should stomp and steal back, while also using transformative tactics. Never disregard the importance of diversity, not in anything, but especially not in warfare. Honestly, I see this argument against it as dividing the left up more. There are aggressive leftists. They have their right to be, because of self-defense. The right-wing fucking murders us, to say we should not be angry and that such anger somehow makes us weaker… I just simply disagree.

A mother, angry about state motherfuckers, downvoted on mother’s day. Damn.

The second amendment: “WELL REGULATED MILITIA”, which is quite specifically a citizen’s army. I’m literally just advocating rights we were guaranteed at the beginning of our constitution. This shouldn’t actually be controversial. If you can’t regulate to an equal playing field, the only way to “well regulate” is by destruction. “Arms” isn’t exclusive to guns just as it isn’t exclusive to bombs. It is however made exclusive to THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT to “bear arms”. The people can find equality in arms that aren’t totally insane (such as the arms they had when the constitution was written), and that is an important part of saying “well regulated”. They designated the military as not an official part of “the people” (the citizenry), and the military itself technically has no right to bear arms. That is why it is within the purview of the second amendment, and arguably the government’s job, to destroy all arms not accessible to the people (and in the case of the military, arms not accessible to ALL PEOPLE). The very point of it is to assure equal weaponry so that the people are not forced from their freedom by the power of the larger societal structures, whether that be a state, a military, or capitalism.

The government owes the people respect, not the other way around. They put food on their table with our money, our work, whether we agree or not. The government’s money isn’t the government’s money, it’s the people’s money, distributed. If they’re going to take our money with or WITHOUT CONSENT and put it towards something else, especially something like murdering innocent people for what mostly seems to be a religious cause, we have to be allowed to complain. We have to be able to shut them down if they won’t change, as the people. The founding fathers intended for our system to change, or we wouldn’t even be able to make amendments. The constitution itself was an intended change from the static religious monarchy of Britain, which required civil war because it was static (it refused to equitably change).

The state, especially the federal government, technically only exists to regulate currency (and resulting industry) as the people need for maximum well-being. So the state needs to get their heads out of their ass and do it instead of trying to silence protestors during national crisis and every war or they’ll be, in a sense, fired. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. Then again, if they were actually doing their fucking job, none of this shit would be happening. The constitution isn’t an unreasonable structure. The biggest problem is that we have let capitalism completely overwrite it, which is quite literally the opposite of what the constitution intended. Once again, “WELL REGULATED”.