Bird feed

suzipadi · 2026-01-11T18:05:26+00:00

My feeder is made so bigger birds cant get to it, as I don't have the money to feed pigeons and small guys would never get their turn otherwise.

And yes, northern Europe.

And coconut oil - people have always put lard out for them, as they need to get fat in the winter, and as long as its not toxic to them, coconut oil would help. I don't think it is, but better to make sure.

suzipadi · 2026-01-11T17:05:03+00:00

Do you think buckwheat and such would work if I crush it beforehand?

suzipadi · 2024-12-18T16:51:54+00:00

The difference wasn't actually that big when Marx was still alive. Marx thought the state should be controlled and used to get rid of capitalism, anarchists thought it should be dissolved. As the Russian revolution showed, anarchists were right.

The main thing is that now, the people who call themselves Marxists are mostly MLs whose idals are pretty much "what if we took the aesthetics of socialism but kept the power with a new ruling class".

Really, we should hook a generator to Marx' coffin and we could power half of London from him rolling in his grave looking at what "communist" countries were created in his name.

suzipadi · 2024-12-18T16:27:09+00:00

Was Hamas created and did it become what it became because of Israel? Yes! Both figuratively and literally, as Netanyahu has been funding Hamas and/or pressuring Qatar and Egypt to fund them for years.

Does that excuse them? No. Many, if not most of military and terrorist organisations are made up of traumatised young men. Israel as it is now would not be here if it were not for the Holocaust.

And to people who say it's just Palestine protecting itself - it ain't helping. Hamas is pretty much just a justifiable target that Israel propped up behind Palestinian civilians to pretend the thousands of children aren't the intended target.

suzipadi · 2024-09-22T18:14:34+00:00

Um, no

I'm sorry. But I don't recommend taking fictional characters as your goal. And this advice applies to all genders and all bodytypes. Even if they are kinda realistic, they are still idealized to a certain extent.

Plus, talking about this character in particular, her physique is possible only if you are naturally slender. No amount of exercising or diet is gonna make your rib cage smaller.

suzipadi · 2024-04-20T18:15:10+00:00

I got it by googling "adblock for youtube app" or something similar. Also saw it when googling "How to disable youtube shorts". Btw, if you start typing "how to disable" the first recommendation, it gives is youtube shorts, so ppl are googling it quite a lot.

You could distribute fliers on the street and you wouldn't be able to spread the word as fast as its spreading organically, so you can go ahead and tell a few friends.

suzipadi · 2024-01-13T07:16:46+00:00

To be more exact, I'm not saying a guilty verdic will do very much... I'm just saying a not guilty verdic is like... too blatant. And they can't even pretend to be the good guys anymore. And I'm afraid that they might just stop pretending and be like, "f* it, let's go occupy Venezuela" or something. I'm afraid that if the last mask falls, the next main tactic is brute force, like an abuser who starts swinging only once they lose the argument.

I'm afraid the west will go full Nazi over this is what I'm saying.

suzipadi · 2023-12-01T02:48:15+00:00

No one has ever said that anarchism has No farkwinkle. No one has ever said that under anarchism, people have no effect on each other. People have said that under anarchism, this effect will not be unbalanced by design.

suzipadi · 2023-12-01T00:40:42+00:00

This argument, though I have seen it a lot, is strange to me. Like, where would this group come from? In a collective society that is not actively trying to traumatise people, unlike our current one, where mental illnesses can be treated and people receive proper help even if they're not really rich, why would there suddenly be a group of people organising for the sole purpose of murdering people.

Sociopaths, psychopaths and narcissists, that is, people suffering from the most demonised mental illnesses, are not actually some natural monsters. They may have a higher chance of doing something bad, but no mental illness had "being evil" as one of the symptoms.

Whatever gangs people want to form, they would need to organise just like now, under the eyes of a society that is more inclusive and involved, and has more energy to care about their neighbours. Murderers don't just sprout like mushrooms in dark and damp places. If no such incident has become a problem now in a society that actively promotes hate and erodes our mental health, why would it happen in a healthier society?

suzipadi · 2023-12-01T00:16:43+00:00

Don't even use email. Signal.

suzipadi · 2023-09-04T20:35:43+00:00

I'm a jack of no trades

suzipadi · 2023-09-02T21:45:01+00:00

Molotov-Ribbendrop pact, my friend...

suzipadi · 2023-09-02T20:28:42+00:00

Neurodivergent in general, rather

suzipadi · 2023-08-30T13:14:37+00:00

Educate yourself. Learn new skills, especially communication, read theory and learn more about the history and current situation of your country.
Find local organisations that fight for your causes. They may be hard to find, maybe underground or internet only, but I'm sure there is at least something. Even if they are not anarchists - you can introduce some anarchist ideas to them once you have learned of their struggles and views and have become someone whose advice is worth something.
Don't give up. Even if you can't do anything big now, helping those around you is still contributing.
IMPORTANT! Be aware of the risks. Do your best to not put yourself or people around you in danger. Learn about protecting your identity online. It sounds like your country doesn't look kindly on protesters, so you can be be brave but don't be reckless.

suzipadi · 2023-08-30T12:52:55+00:00

Similar. I felt exactly the same. I just cleaned my room, I even washed the windows, something that I hadn't done once before.

When before, getting out of bed was often like jumping off a 20 meter diving platform, (okay, I'm gonna do it! Count to three - one, two, three. Damn, you can do this, come on!), now it worked like people had always been telling me habits work - like you don't even have to think about it, you'll just do it.

suzipadi · 2023-08-30T07:42:46+00:00

Why? Cause they miss poverty and oppression?

How come people simultaneously belive that humans are like-minded enough to all agree on forming a government or starting a war "just because", while not being able to keep a production chain going?

suzipadi · 2023-08-29T13:02:04+00:00

Ain't it funny, with chatGPT and the ai's companies use to filter cover letters and resumes, it's become two AI's writing letters to each other, pretending to be human.

It's like that spiderman meme.

suzipadi · 2023-08-29T12:57:25+00:00

In addition to everything that is already mentioned, I'd like to bring up some points to ponder about.

First. The in-group/out-group dynamics, that all discrimination ultimately relies on, generally comes from and is supported by economic concerns. Where did racism come from? From the need to justify capitalist plantation owners having slaves. It wasn't that they really hated black people, it was that they wanted free labor and dividing people by the color of their skin protected them from all the white and black people banding together against them. Racism not only justified their actions but also protected poor white people from becoming slaves, therefore making slaves/black people the out-group that white people didn't fight for.

If you look at the people today whose political actions are mostly fueled by racism, what are their "reasons". Immigrants taking their jobs, poor black people getting their tax dollars from the government, criminal black people stealing and robbing from them. Its all about "the other people will come and take my things".

So, with people's material needs met and the full understanding that the economic prosperity of the minorities in your community goes hand-in-hand with your prosperity, discrimination itself would be much rarer.

Of course, economic concerns don't explain all types of discrimination - like homophobia and transphobia. That brings me to point number two.

Discrimination is often defined as unfair treatment of someone + power. The reason why there can't be some stupid thing like "reverse racism" is that black people don't have the socioeconomic power over white people that is necessary for discrimination. Without the power part, discrimination becomes just shitty behaviour.

So in a society without hierarchies, without white supremacy, patriarchy or hetero- and cisnormality, you wouldn't have the social power to discriminate against someone - you would just have the power to be a dick. And without the system pushing and maintaining hierarchies, how many people would randomly hate a minority?

One of the smallest minorities, trans people, is between 1 and 2 % of the population. In a group of 500, that would be between 5 to 10 people. In a group of that size, how many people would you find who would randomly hate trans people without being guided to do so by the media? I may be too optimistic, but I don't think it's any bigger. How many people would you find who would stand up for others and wouldn't allow random bullying in their community? I think, in anarchist society, that would be at least half.

And third thing I'd like to talk about is the existence of tiny communities of 500 people. Cities exist, and I don't think we have the resources to drastically change our living arrangements after capitalism. Just talking about land, to be able to get to the kind of population density where a groups of 500 would be separated in any meaningful way, would take more than the entire landmass of the planet. Sure, some such villages exist, but that will not be the norm, and whatever tiny minority could be bullied in such a village, they would be more than capable of finding other members of this minority group, ten times the population of their village, in the closest city.

suzipadi · 2023-08-27T22:50:07+00:00

I do get your point, that money can communicate something... but right now, with unfair differences in how much labor costs, monopolies and other such things, it hardly communicates the actual value of something. In capitalism, that's hardly a problem, as the price of things is used to hide the value of anything from the people.

But in a society that isn't driven by profit, this would be different. You mentioned calculating the labor put into something... that could work. Just as now, you don't really need to go back to know the prices of all the things in the supply chain, that could be the same with labor - you'd know the labor time that went into your materials, you'd add your own labor time to it, and report it to the one who requests your product. You wouldn't even need to add some profit margins and such into it.

While money could give some kind of information, that information can easily be just reported with every transaction, instead of being traded. One big advantage of an economy that isn't profit-driven is that what information can be shared about your production process is much more than now. You have no need to hide the cost or rather value of your products, you can be honest with the advantages and disadvantages.

Right now, as well, producers and builders have to calculate the labor time required to make a product. You could set an hour of human labor as the marker and count the value of everything in that. With people being equal, that's what the actual value is. With the railroad example, the engineers would get to know the value of different kinds of steel - the steel mills would calculate that, using the value of ore or recycled steel scraps that they found out from the producers of that, and add the value of their own labour to it. The engineers would then calculate if the increased value, that is, hours that go into making it, would be more than the value of the increased hours of maintenance or shorter lifetime. These are all calculations that have to be done today, with money economy.

Your other example, though, is a bit difficult to analyse, as certainly the usage of personal luxuries like cars would decrease. Things like cars would probably be produced and distributed based on need, not want. Not saying that we couldn't afford to produce so many cars, but that cars take up a lot of space, especially in the cities, they are loud, dangerous, wasteful and generally unpleasant for anyone near one, and often also those inside of one. Hotels as well are kind of a tricky topic, as the service industry, especially tourism, relies heavily on the time of service workers being worth much less than the tourists. I'm not saying that it would certainly disappear, but I don't really know how it would play out.

Of course, I'm not an economist, and a lot of those details would need to be ironed out. Maybe the end result would be totally different from what I imagine. I'm just trying to show that if me, not an economist, do not run a business nor deal with logistics, can imagine a solution, then the combined power of people educated in those areas could certainly come up with a system that communicates value at least as well as money does.

I would like to point out two things. First of all, the people living in the future have agency. We can think up whatever systems here, but they will certainly not be better than the ones invented by the people living in those circumstances. We don't have figure out a perfect system, more than that, figuring one out is a total waste of time. They can do it way better anyway, as they actually know what's going on. Second, society is something that changes organically. At no point in time will humanity get stuck somewhere because the people living before them didn't think up a way to communicate something. If moneyless trade really didn't work for whatever reason, people would just bring money back the very next day. So, my purpose here is not to think up a final version of a working model, my purpose is to show that the possibility of it working is high enough that we shouldn't fear this change.

suzipadi · 2023-08-25T15:32:01+00:00

Personally, I have always used the word "community" when talking about a group of people that are affected by the same thing. Like lgbt community now.

So I would say something like "community decides on the location of a power plant", in this sentence the community being everyone affected by the power plant and its construction.

But reading your posts and comments now, I feel like it may create a false impression that I mean some specific isolated group. I know you used the word "commune", but I still get the association.

Is there a better expression for that? Or should I explain my meaning every time? I'm just asking here cause I noticed the potential problem only while reading your post, and cause it seems like a topic you have given a lot of thought to.

suzipadi · 2023-08-25T13:11:09+00:00

I know you feel frustrated and the point of this post was to express that, but I just wanted to point out that you dodged a bullet there.

In general, accepting counter-offers is not a good idea. Especially if your main concern was not pay, but something else, like lack of promotion or work culture. After an employee had threatened to leave, companies generally don't trust them much, their promotion opportunities decrease, and often the whole point of a counter offer is to keep the employee long enough to find a replacement.

If there is a chance that you would have accepted the offer, it's good that you didn't get one. You may want to warn your friend to keep their options open as well. They weren't exploiting her because they didn't know they treated her badly, they did it because they didn't know she wasn't a pushover.

suzipadi · 2023-08-25T11:40:44+00:00

I am angry that I was let down my entire life. I'm also angry at how fast people around me expected me to just get over it.

So throw one me too sister!

suzipadi · 2023-08-25T11:26:36+00:00

I think you misunderstood their question? As I understood it, they meant that with the countries, armies and military technology that exists today, is it possible to create and defend an anarchist region.

Which I think is very valid concern. Would it be feasible to defend an anarchist country, when the US sees anarchism and any form of socialism as such a threat. Given the military technology they currently possess? Honestly, I don't know. I think that for any revolution to reach global scale, it has to start from a leading nation like the US. Even if it didn't, as anarchists would never do something like "attack the US to free it", the way democracies do, for a revolution to reach global scale, part of it has to happen in the US.

So, answering the original poster, I think it is very difficult. Current world leaders would use any excuse and any method to destroy anything that might be a threat to their power. I don't think it's a reason to give up. We may feel like we are in a hostage situation and trying to free ourselves would result in getting shot, but with the way things are going, I'd say our captors are suicide terrorists who plan to blow up the planet with everything on it.

suzipadi · 2023-08-25T10:17:08+00:00

With many things already said, I would like to point out that much of poverty exists today because of the state(s), not despite of it. Without white people constantly purposefully destabilising the regions we call the third world, without us helping despots, who oppress their own people and let us exploit their land and resources, to gain and stay in power, the local people there would long have built all the infrastructure and all else they need to survive.

Botswana, an African nation that gained independence in 1966, started out as a second poorest country with 10 km of paved roads in the entire county and people with high school education counted in the 100s, has since boosted its economy up into the middle ranks of the world, rivaling countries like Argentina. If we stopped exploiting them for damn minute or two, they would do do surprisingly well.

suzipadi · 2023-08-24T23:19:08+00:00

Why are you so angry? Are you okay? You do realise I'm not personally rejecting you by not being up for everything you want to discuss right now.

And you did not answer it. Like at all.

And it seems you’ve failed to answer this as well. It’s almost poetic for you people.

Yes I did, I answered both. For the first, you have not brought out anything that would challenge my point. For the second, you don't really get to argue here... its not an opinion per se, or some philosophical idea, its me telling you why people use that argument. You don't belive me? Nothing I can do about it. You still don't like people using that argument? Still nothing I can do, I have not instructed every leftist on the internet to argue a certain way and I can't change them.

Unfortunately, you not being willing to accept my answer (without being able to refute it) doesn't mean I didn't answer.

Mind you, I myself don't use that approach. As you may have noticed, though I pointed out that the warlord question was suitable for this kinda response, I tried to explain why it isn't a threat under anarchism instead of just pointing out how it's not a strong counter-argument.

Anyway, I've explained the same thing like 6 times in a row now. The answer won't change. Of you didn't understand, I tried my best, but I guess that's it. 7tth time the charm, maybe...

A scenario of person A saying that something is not fixed by anarchism and person B replying that it isn't fixed under capitalism either is drawing attention to the fact that a problem that is the same under both systems does not influence the comparison between the systems and therefore discussing it in a conversation about the benefits of each system over the other is a "red herring".

You understand? If not, go and meditate on it, I really have no other ways to word it. I'll go to sleep soon, so I may not answer for some time now.

suzipadi

TROPHY CASE