of course not, but we also recognize that whatever taxes there are, surplus-value extraction is way more. the labor aristocracy, especially the professional-managerial labor aristocracy, often opposes taxation/programs that would benefit them. they "pay too much" in taxes, but they don't even recognize their own surplus-value extraction.
democracy is when the government has parties. and the more parties it has, the more democraticer it is. and if it has two whole parties, that's freedom.
These contacts were consensual. No force was applied. The girls received $200 to $300 for each session. That’s a lot of money for an hour long effort for someone at that age.
i think the software community in general is filled with libertarians: cryptobros and intellectual property afficianados &c. there was an article about it that was shared pretty widely in the 90s, called The Californian Ideology. i haven't read it since i was a baby leftist so idk if it holds up. i remember some of the stuff being pretty out there but overall i really liked it.
i'd imagine you can get them a lot cheaper if you don't need them to be reusable or sanitary. then again, there's an equal chance a local sex shop saw it as cheap advertising. which i guess i can sympathize with.
you're totally right. what else could the point of a "dildo protest" be? every liberal "protest" action against trump ends up reinforcing his/their shared worldview. and the thing is, despite what i just said, i can think of one way a dildo protest could be not that. you're already gonna get charged with assault on a federal officer. what's the harm in also doing assault with a few bodily fluids?
i hear rumors that as many person-hours are spent cleaning up the messes left by LLMs as are saved having them write the code. has anyone found that to be true or am i just talking out of my ass?
i'm kind of the same as you. i never read anything voluntarily until after i graduated college and started doing reading groups on lemmygrad dot ml. i don't know your major so this might not apply, but for me there were a lot of professors who would assign readings and then the lectures would cover all the important material anyway. there were a lot of textbooks i never even opened. thank god for anna's archive.
obviously you'll have readings you can't skip. besides skimming, which people have already mentioned, i liked to go to a different place to do readings and homework. it helped me focus when i was able to go to a specific place to lock in. i tried to leave my phone in my bag or out of reach, so i wouldn't be able to get it without moving. it sounds stupid but if it takes even a tiny bit of effort to go on my phone i do it a lot less.
as for your peers, i would imagine how many books you've read isn't the most important thing. unless you're joining a classic literature club, there's far more important stuff. obviously i don't know your school or your situation but i would imagine people have other interests besides books. shared interests are far more important for bonding with your peers than the academic stuff. universities tend to be large enough that everyone will fit in somewhere, but no one will fit in everywhere.
i've noticed the same things you have, so it's nice at least to have some confirmation. the professional-managerial class tends to vote more liberal, and the petty bourgeoisie tends to be more conservative. obviously the lines there are far from firm. i would think it has something to do with how democrats are more concerned with giving concessions to workers, especially wealthy ones, and republicans are concerned with taking things from workers. democrats make it slightly easier to unionize (if your union doesn't rock the boat too much) and republicans make it harder. the pmc benefits from unions or at least doesn't care, and the petty bourgeoisie is scared shitless of unions.
same for other policy. the petty bourgeoisie, as we know, forms the material base for fascism, because any change in existing property relations would completely destroy their already precarious class position. the pmc is similar in that they also benefit from the current state of things, but they don't need to be nearly so wary of property in particular.
the petty bourgeoisie sees someone shoplifting from walgreens and their stomach drops out of their ass. the pmc sees shoppers prevented from accessing their treats by cages or guards or whatever, and they get upset. or maybe they have more sympathy for the shoplifter. accordingly, democrat-run states tend to be more lenient on petty property crimes, and republican-run states tend to be incredibly harsh.
the petty bourgeoisie sees in immigrants an easy scapegoat for why they haven't become patrick bateman yet, whereas the pmc sees their housekeeper or the line cook who works at their local restaurant. both love ice, the petty bourgeoisie because they love deportations, and the pmc because they love the threat of deportations, which keeps their housekeeper and line cook from unionizing. although as you mentioned, some industries have different relations to immigrants than others, which certainly affects both subclasses.
in terms of less-material stuff, the dems love their smarmy harvard graduates with big credentials, and the gop loves their plain-talking klan members. this makes sense to me because education is a bar to entry into the pmc and not the petty bourgeoisie. dems love shit-talking people with no college education, and the gop loves shit-talking these self-important douchebags. the pmc loves the cerebral masturbation of The West Wing, and the petty bourgeoisie loves the brutal fascist violence of whatever police procedural slop they have on right now.
i had to think about this for a bit and i'm not completely satisfied with my analysis. i'd love someone else to point out my mistakes, because i suspect i made a few.
of course not, but we also recognize that whatever taxes there are, surplus-value extraction is way more. the labor aristocracy, especially the professional-managerial labor aristocracy, often opposes taxation/programs that would benefit them. they "pay too much" in taxes, but they don't even recognize their own surplus-value extraction.