in alt text skykit.blue

yea but its funny :3

of course my pookie bear wants to hoard me all for themselves

genuinely be careful this is how i flirt, i'm unironically developing feelings for you

i should delete this before goeoview gets to see it

sorry everyone

you’re astroturfing it babe it doesn’t hit the same

why am i being a no fun allowed gremlin who gaf blawg

it’s different because it was a tongue in cheek fresh identity that the community historically recognized as such

kasey be like: this is my new “alt” account. 😈 my home away from home, if you will. haha this is gonna be awesome. *friends follow again* kasey2: this is my new

are… you cheating on me? 🥺 the sanctity of our monogamous love has been violated

the kids call it yuri i think

socdems are enlightening re:the state for the same reason hobbes is: they’re clearheaded authoritarians

unapologetic maybe, clearheaded not so much

shut up alice

goeo i'm literally gonna nuzzle u

not quite, it’s more like they don’t think the state has a moral right to misuse their money, or appropriate it in the first place

ngl i think i like crazy confused things by bringing that reference in. i keep trying to correct course but flopping

in my mind you’re distinct from the “my money”ers because their position is a theoretical one and you’re just saying practically i can walk away and they wouldn’t like that, which is perfectly compatible with either

well the money you have been allocated is up to your discretion once it has been finally allocated yea. i don’t think we really disagree, i just don’t see all that much significance in individual opt-out, im more interested in the overall dynamic

sure, but that’s just more a function of states liking that they have workers. yes they would be missing out on your future taxes and they’d be real bummed abt that in the aggregate

waaaa i’m sorry brain mush and i don’t understand the point you were making awaa

oh yea that’s because they do. ownership is secured by the state

“it’s not your money” is an argument about descriptively how we understand the process of money exchanging hands, and is a way to refute moral arguments about how the state should not be taking (non-)citizen’s money [to do x thing]

they key bit is that we’re counting firms as distributional institutions as well. the money you “earn” from your job isn’t yours either. unless i’m misunderstanding your point

yeah srry i think i wasn’t talking to your context enough, i think basically anything you can get away with is legitimate, and if you wanna pressure or threaten or emigrate, go right ahead. my kinda whole thing is that im not wanting to moralize here, and i don’t think the moralizing ppl try works

well money is just money it’s all bad *^*

oh yeah ofc i don’t believe otherwise :) u do u pikachu hawk tuah spit on that thang

also the above makes it sound like i’m shilling for the state but actually it’s more like, i think you should hate the state and i think you should hate money. clinging to money gives people a sense of security against the state, but it isn’t a viable line of flight out of dystopia

(because money is predicated upon the existence of the state, for one, and the money-form is not your friend and carries with it a whole buncha ptoey [which is why i included marx screenshot in op])

we don’t have to be ruled by one global super power, you can have different centers of power but they’re all playing the same game. there is one world system of the dominant mode of production

well you can ofc, but then you’re just under a new distributional regime. part of the game is that you get to keep what they left to you prior, but it’s not as if you could get paid, not pay your taxes, and walk out without them caring

ah ok cool gotcha. sure, you’re granted the permission to use the money at your discretion, and at that point sure it’s fine to call it “your money”. but the point is that not much hinges on that -

you’re not giving the state “your money” when they take taxes. they, alongside the rest of the distributional apparatuses, are the ones granting you money. it happens to be “yours” is the short-term possessive sense in between institutions, but that’s basically normatively irrelevant

in short, you actually *can’t* choose to give your money to whomever if the government takes* it. and there’s no philosophical recourse to object to them taking* it in principle

boooo hisss snarls prances around u yearningly

that’s the part where i think geuss isn’t incredulous or skeptical enough about identity, and where i feel more affinity with stirner. i probably should have just led with stirner, but that’s kind of a whole thing and also fairly cringe on its face.

i won’t make the strong claim that no labels ever can be useful, but what i do claim is that they are dangerous

okay sorry i realize i kinda jumped in the deep end. that post is drawing together like 4 disparate things that are not making the same argument. the upshot of the post (besides just to meme) is that one shouldn’t feel any particular affinity towards “their” money (and shouldn’t

be bothered by the fact itself that the state is taking “their” money). each of the elements arrive at that conclusion in its own way. the graeber section is just about the historical story about money’s adoption and spread.

the real central thing there is bruenig’s article in the alt text. it’s an argument against “my money” style arguments and a way of reframing the discussion of taxes

yes!!

if dog over ip wasn’t nerfed by adhd she’d be foucault/butler’s strongest soldier

yea identity stuff is tricky bc it’s mostly just boring, and usually the more enlightening approach is to give an account of the roles it serves in folk’s lives and why they don’t need it. stirner is still goat (blumenfeld’s ‘all things are nothing to me’ is good companion too :>)

prolly ain’t worth reading tbh, more of a personal historical artifact than anything else

nah i’m not one but im like mostly chill with the material, i just don’t really care one way or the other. some parts of the community can be rancid im sure but most of them are fine and harmless

i just like weirdos

say it isn’t so

goeo when are you writing a genealogy of chemistry terms and their philosophical significance