Anarchism. Not the radical burn-the-world-to-ashes kind but rather the kind where power is given to the individuals as a whole and every one of them directly decides how society is shaped. A society with no authority that can turn to tyranny and where everyone's needs are satisfied and everyone contributes on the field they are best on (to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability).
According to the school of thought I follow, every individual on a society has a direct say on everything discussed. Rules, or laws, are defined through a consensus between every individual. If a single individual disagrees, provided they present valid arguments, then the rule must be expanded in a way everyone agrees with it.
On this society, everyone's basic needs are a core right that cannot be taken or restricted in any way, shape or form. That includes, but not restricted to, proper housing, including electricity and Internet, food and water infrastructure, education and healthcare. That explains the "to each according to their needs" part partially.
Having their needs, therefore their survival ensured, individuals can dedicate themselves to the field they prefer, ensuring no-one is stuck on a job they hate, they can at any point change, and society as a whole benefits from this liberty. Of course there are some fields that individuals with some kinds of disabilities physically cannot work on normally, but there can be jobs that are adapted to their condition, if possible. That covers the "from each according to their ability".
Those two statements allow for an economical reform. The basic needs of an individual are fulfilled from the get-go, but if they desire some other commodities, they can work for them. Money, if needed at all, would only be needed for those commodities, while favoring trading between individuals. Again, society as a whole would determine how much a product would be worth comparatively to others, creating something more akin to a measuring scale of worth rather than a currency.
Rather far left both economically and socially, but I actually understand that progress takes step by step effort and screaming that you want everything done now doesn't get you anywhere. Also, purity tests of "follow every one of my beliefs or you're evil" are dumb and unhelpful when you're discussing where people are on the left.
I am very heavy left leaning. I want adults to be able to marry as many other consenting adults as they want(yes I mean a poly liftstyle). I want trans people to have rights and I want women to have full reproductive rights. I want free Healthcare for all as well as some sort of free food and water if needed and free basic clothing and housing if needed. And honestly I want us to start killing nazis again.
I vote Green. Howard destroyed the utopia future we all hoped for, but there is still opportunity for Australia to be a society of equals.
The two right wing and far right wing parties of the US still mostly confuse me. Their lack of compulsory voting scares me. I also have been shocked on my visits to the US as to how their country is full of inequalities and people desperately poor. Weird place, glad I don’t live there.
I don’t know about Australia, but in the countries i have heard about with compulsory voting, it’s totally legal to vote blank, i.e. not actually vote for anyone. You just have to go to the polling station and put your blank ballot in the box.
So you’re (if i’m not mistaken) not forced to vote for a party you don’t agree with.
One of our right-wing parties has figured out that most people are not as right-wing as it is, but it can still win if only the most extreme people vote. So they try to make voting more difficult even. The opposite of compulsory
Theoretically some kind of communist but it’s mostly just all window dressing for whatever lets me act out my decades long grudge against conservatism at large. The fact that I hate their asses and want to spend the rest of my life lashing out at them is more where my commitments lie more so than any specific school of thought
Basically Disney is keeping a lot of the same creatives behind the original Daredevil, but intend to use season 1 pay rates because they tacked, ‘Born Again’ on to the title.
Pretty gross penny pinching from one of the wealthiest media corporations in the world.
Yeah, look at any of the Disney channel series, they all change the name slightly to reset the season and avoid union required pay increases. One example: The Suite Life… which was split into 2-3 season series.
It is a complete reboot though isn’t it? The original show on Netflix isn’t part of the canon of this one? If so then I don’t really get their complaint.
A tonne of the same cast are returning. Bernthal is still the Punisher, D’Onofrio is still Kingpin… no, this is a calculated decision to pay the workers less.
Same actors != not a reboot. Iirc they’re going to have gal gadot as Wonder Woman again but are rebooting her character so the 2 previous movies are not canon, didn’t happen.
If they’re making a new series that has literally nothing to do with the previous one, zero connection to anything that happened in it, how is it not a reboot? Should they use different actors just to justify it being a reboot?
I am fully in agreement with you, although I can see why you and others didn’t take that from my initial comment. The calculated decision I referred to was Disney’s cynical claim that this is a reboot. They’re shafting workers, we can all see it.
Even if they wipe the continuity, which is still very unclear, is it really fair to call it a “complete reboot” when they’re using the same cast for the most prominent roles?
"But the system is broken. Audiences are dumber. Normal people don’t go through reviews like they used to. Rotten Tomatoes is something the studios can game. So they do.”
"The spiders belong to the Roddenberryus genus … "
I admire the naming commitment. I’m not scared of spiders, but I do have moments. Like the first time I saw a huge golden orb-weaver in my yard. I contacted college entomology departments, certain that spider was a bizarre mutation, likely due to human irresponsibility. I thought I was living a Saturday afternoon creature feature. An entomologist was kind enough to respond, and informed me that the spider was common and not a threat to humans.
quarks
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.