LavaPlanet

This whole Gen vs Gen bullcrap is a bourgeois distraction attempt. Don't buy into any of it. There is no Gen vs Gen, it's bourgeois vs proletariat.

I'm having a really rough time, currently. Too many neurodivergent needs, not enough hands, BUT! I'm excited to turn around what seems like a super tricky situation, into a super fun place of joy.

Life is gunna throw stuff at you, you can't change that, and sometimes it's disproportionately heavy handed in throwing the stuff. But you can be super proud of how powerful you are when you make the most of your situation. Proud of how clever and inventive and unstoppable, you are. This seems like I've been backed into an impossible corner, but I'm excited to show my kids how anything is possible, you just gotta get creative. I'll find joy and I'll fill our home with it and I'll remind them how truly lucky we are. And then I will have handled this like the true boss I am. It seems impossible to get time to meet everyone's needs let alone make time for self care, but I will turn that around. I've done more with worse situations than this. I absolutely have got this.

I've also been gifted a really good quality bike! (thanks Dad!) That I'm super excited to ride and improve my health (just got a fun times diagnosis of fibromyalgia, after asking for the last 9 years why I'm in so much pain all the time) but now I know, I also know how to battle it!

I miss riding a bike, I loved riding my bike as a kid. I'm so looking forward to connecting with my child self, wind in my hair (well the wispy bits around the helmet, anyway, lol)

I bet Zelensky actually got some sense into trump at the funeral. It's been since that conversation he's flipped his usual script.

All that 50's "advertising" that was essentially social conditioning and oppression, hear me out, because all the women had to do all the jobs while the men were gone. They got a taste of freedom, their own money and skills. They were all like, how hard can it be, boys do it. But when the men came back they had to shove them back in the box, they had to effectively put the cat back in the bag, it required a huge effort of bullying from the government and all. Like they hit hard with this kinda pervasive stuff, everywhere. That's when women were forced into the "get in the kitchen" role. Now we get to have both! Work AND be predominantly responsible for the majority of the house labor and child raising, yay!

Yeah even the addresses were identical. Love the show. I get it, he acts like an asshole but it's usually for some super chess move. Plus those were different times, when it was written, it was OK to be an asshole for greater means. He risked his own life to save others, too.

I think he'd be written differently in this day and time, though, he'd be less asshole more stoic or something. Hugh Laurie is brilliant.

I didn't think about all the spiders that'd be in flood waters...

Sorry for some reason my rely appeared here rather than where I aimed it.

I'm so sad he rests on Sundays, cos sundick has such a great ring to it.

I want the artist to make tshirts and I can buy them. Is that a thing?

Thank you for sharing, it's an important question, but it's not ok to expect this from women's sport. It's taken so long to reach the top, we live in a capitalist society and it's not ok to expect women's sport and participants to be political first and women's sport secondary, even at the risk of destroying the thing that they are, women's sport, by nit picking who sponsors them. Why is it OK to so hugely police women's behaviour and actions, especially when they are not in any way in a stable position to choose. But men skate by completely unmentioned. Because men will be men? This entire line of thinking ties into the socialisation of women to hugely police their own behaviour and be policed from birth, and plays into the oppression of women as a class. You can not start with the underdog, and expect them to take down capitalism. That's our job as consumers. And our job to put pressure on the bigger fish, the men, to start questioning their sponsorship choices. Push hard on the men and that will by default make choices for women's sport and sponsorship easier. Because currently they can't be picky, they're still fighting against decades / centuries of oppression. Women used to be predominant in sports, until they started beating the men, then they segregated the sports and banned women from participating. Your fight is with capitalism, and what people who aren't in a position to choose have to do under capitalism isn't right to police, because the stakes are too high for them and they have no power to weild. Similarly people who are wage oppressed may want to participate in the boycott, but have been forced into a corner of "buy the things on the boycott list, or starve". You are furthering capitalism to further its oppression, by raging at or taking down its already oppressed components, you aren't fighting against capitalism in this method. Capitalism relies on oppression and racism, sexism, othering and punching down, poor, homeless, segregation and war, all feed capitalism / are the core root of capitalism. It doesn't survive without these things. These things are artificially created by capitalism, if you force oppression or oppress, you may feel like you're fighting against it, but you are not, you're feeding it.

This could be taken out of context and twisted to an extreme version, it doesn't mean oppressed people are without judgment of their actions, it means if you have an argument like this, you take it to the top dog, first. And by default, the choice you create then rolls down the hill to the oppressed. If you want to make space for this choice for oppressed people, stop the biggest most privileged, first, set a precedent they can easily apply. Put pressure on the boycott list, pick one and as a large group attack that one brand at a time, finding its largest source and take it down from there.

Like coke, they opened a factory in occupied Palestine and tried to say it wasn't. Nestle who starved babies to death in head spinning numbers. All businesses operate under these motives and possibilities, under capitalism. There are no morals to capitalism, without regulation it goes unchecked, it's main operandi is to keep making more money, even if that pathway leads to the deaths of the consumers, if that happens, unchecked, they just rebrand.

If your fight is the boycott list or capitalism, trying to take it down from the lowest, least powerful rung, isn't effectual at all. To have the best effect, you aim for the top, you take down the biggest source and you do it en masse. If it becomes not ok, for the biggest sports icon to have that particular sponsor, then by default that choice is afforded women and minorities. If top sports (that currently still being men with the most power and privilege) are shamed into dumping a sponsor, that has hugely more effect to your cause. That has more power to be noticed. If women ignore a sponsor, it's not noticed nearly as much. It has much less effect overall. So I suppose you have to ask yourself, are you mainly aiming to strategically take down the boycott list and capitalism or just only police women's behaviour and choices.

I know they both (Coles + ww) did some sketchy stuff to kill off all stores around them, they set up contracts with premises not to let competitors in the buildings, those contracts have been made illegal, but they still existhow are you going to know they exist to eradicate them. Plus high rents that are killing for profit businesses, that combined with Coles + ww buying power, (bulk buying in truckloads) mean they can acquire a product at a ridiculously lowered price and can therefore lower the price to much lower than a side seller can, until those go out of business and then they start the aggressive price rises, once they've killed off competition. They also sign contracts with producers that don't allow them to sell to anyone else. They do heaps of other, really aggressive anti competition stuff, that should be illegal, but they probably lobby to skate by unregulated. I would suggest there's reasons politicians aren't doing anything about the monopoly or the practices they've utilised to become a monopoly, in tandem. So those practices would keep anything like what you're talking about out.