commie

First things first: if your mom has serious issues and abuses you, seek professional help. If that's not the case, there may not be cause to avoid her. Either way, you don't need to get love from anyone. If someone doesn't love you, that's on them. If you don't love yourself, that's on you. You can love yourself even though you're a rascal, just like you love others.

"i" is problematic. It changes, and you at best only choose some of the changes it undergoes. Decisions are generally dishonest, to varying degrees..

Nutjobs may tell you otherwise but obviously insurance, banking, bureaucracy and so forth aren't scams. Why on Earth would you think otherwise? Obviously any inadequately-regulated industry will be rife with scammers. The profit motive ensures the worst will incessantly get in your face as long as they aren't made to shut up, but their obnoxiousness doesn't mean there are many scammers in the industry or that much of its business involves scams.

Now your first question is a bit tricky in that it has many valid answers. I'm not sure what you're asking exactly if you're not restating an earlier question but try one of these: a) because otherwise there would be no things b) why not? Your second is easier: if you can make anything into a thing, you can also make any happening into a doing, complete with its doer. That doesn't make you a thing. And finally there is no one to turn no thing into things. These are all things.

Sure, you can make anything into a thing. But that thing you've made is no more than the other things.

It's not actually random noise. And the reason why is up to you really (else it would be something like the God of Abraham rather than no thing).

The obvious explanation is that no thing isn't featureless. The reason the features aren't thing is that they're more like random noise. The things you conceive are in contrast much fewer and less subtle than the features.

As long as by "us", you mean you *and* me rather than both of us separately, OK. I can drop my anti-essentialist act if you can drop your individualist act.

Sure, but it's something you are imagining about someone else's life. I wouldn't recognize the identity you built for me. And no identity or individuality is required on my end of the conversation, except inasmuch as I happen to use an identity to pay the electrical utility, the telco and so forth which are enabling this conversation. Like it or not, *these* are the facts of the matter... which is of course not an excuse for craziness. I've always said in this forum: if you're going to believe in anything, believe in other minds!

I agree that many here are preaching madness. However, since you do value fact over incoherent babble, the *fact* remains that... ... I most certainly did not. As you say, this identity is key to our interaction. It is not however of any use to me when it comes to smelling the air and so forth. It's a social thing. And while society is indeed a foundation to both our interaction and my life, it's not the identity part which is fundamental but the products and services I need such as food, the ER and so forth. Free access to essential services can unfortunately not be taken for granted but you need not be a communist in order to understand that neither our interaction nor smelling the air actually requires the property and good credit which happens to be associated with this legal identity of mine in certain databases. Oddly enough this delusion and lack of perspective strikes me as a good description of people well-adjusted to this "normalized" society.

Are you asking for examples of nothing?

Since someone asked why... The Fed doesn't actually print money. It's a metaphor. The Fed can do exactly what it does now even if all transactions are done with bitcoin. It's irrelevant because bitcoin prices will be determined by the dollar/bitcoin rates. What matters is debt and taxes.

Most new technologies have purposes other than destruction.

And there is so far as I can tell nothing that you can do with idealism that you can't also do with dualism...

If you aren't keeping bitcoin but paying in bitcoins supplied by your regular bank and paid for with your regular balance (or your credit), you are quite safe for instance. But someone, somewhere is necessarily left holding the bag.

Yes, but that would be a dualist model... which isn't what you're asking. Your perspective is a bit naive and could perhaps be improved by integrating the views of the idealists on this forum. But as far as I can tell, idealists have so far failed to produce satisfactory answers to your questions so I wouldn't hold my breath.

If more people understood bitcoin, it would be banned. Blockchain and electronic payments in general and currencies you can mine such as bitcoin are separate issues. If you use a credit card to pay in bitcoins, you are using the centralized system already regulated by central banks. You could just as well have paid in dollars or sterling instead of euros, as people have always done. It doesn't matter how many people use bitcoins in transactions. That's irrelevant to depressions and it's not the main job of central banks to deal with that (though they might very well take on that less important job in the future). Very few people understand anything about money and credit. There are plenty of banks which let you keep bitcoins, and that doesn't make it safe. Paying someone who is asking for bitcoins through your bank would on the other hand be safe. But if no one keeps bitcoin, no one is going to ask for bitcoins. So while some can be safe, not everyone can be safe.

Why the fuck not? I'm hungry right now and I don't care if I'm happy (which is another way to say I'm happy). I don't need to eat because my liver can dump enough glucose in my bloodstream to last me a while (don't worry: I won't bore you to death by going on about proteins and so forth). I'll eat whenever. I'm not food insecure so who cares? Seeking pleasure is as dumb as seeking pain. Pain is awesome and so is pleasure, but seeking either is to miss the point entierly. Hedonism is the epitome of over-intellectualizing.

It simply hadn't occured to me you might be moving! Well, everyone tries desperately to guess how trustworthy other people are using whatever signs we can. Nothing to be ashamed of. I'd be much more concerned about discrimination against tenants who appear Muslims than against landlords. When it comes to leases, I like to meet people but I guess I'm getting old. I hope thing app thing works out for you in the end.

Marx is dated if that's what you mean. But if you're talking about the topics rather than scholarly traditions... well, how much Marx have you read? Are you asking why it's not a stretch to do what you did in the first post of this thread (that is, putting all "capitalism" in the same box)?

As it should be. It's supposed to represent the old school Marxist POV, innit? Their notions about the stages of capitalism were pretty unsophisticated, and I don't think it's a strech to say that they all amount pretty much to the same thing.

Sure, Marxism has been very influential and people have been making store-brand pseudo-Marxism ever since. But what do you mean by "different search fields" exactly?

Why would I hate you? Did you ever do harm to me or mine? Are you going around calling for lynchings or something? What is this scam you're afraid you fell for? You say you work too hard for a boss who doesn't pay you enough, and that you pay your landlord too much. But that's not a scam, is it? Nothing about that is hidden. That's simply how this society works.

People aren't afraid of spiders or snake because they can control them... Is your landlord Russian? If not, you have nothing to fear from Russians.

You have indeed outdone yourself. Are you an Iraqi pretending to think like an ignorant yank or a yank pretending to be Iraqi?