Redbolshevik2

John Davidson is not a racist for having a neurological condition that forces him to vocalize things.

I don't subscribe to standpoint epistemology because I'm an adult.

Should I listen to Cuban voices too

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Genuinely perfect rendition of the "You're racist for assuming I don't understand Tourette's" followed by ignorance of Tourette's. Chef's kiss. This is why I have no grace.

It's an awful situation. Unequivocally fuck the BBC and BAFTA, who showed they could exercise editorial censorship when they omitted Free Palestine. And while a warning was given to attendants, it should've been more explicit. And having a racial slur yelled at you at a celebration of your craft is a nightmarish situation that can't have its emotional sting removed by an intellectual understanding of the situation.

But the amount of ableism I've seen is pretty maddening. People will say they understand tourettes with one breath and then ask why he wasn't calling white presenters crackers.

I have sympathy for everything listed above, and fuck the right wingers going "oh but you say it in your rap music" but this is just as much a conversation about disability as it is about race. The man has been hospitalized multiple times because of scenarios like this.

It's not "whenever they saw a child"

He has an uncontrollable condition, and I'd say easily 8/10 people online complaining about him are claiming that he chose to say what he said.

How does my patience for ignorant bullshit affect you?

The argument I remember* (for england & the Netherlands) was that the soil quality was poor compared to the rest of Europe. The landowners in both states turned to trade, first as a supplement but eventually whole hog.

The first chapter of Origin is dedicated to summarizing the various schools of thought (at the time of publishing) on where Capitalism originated in Europe and why, and one of those that the author rejects is the idea that Capitalism arose primarily from trade.

**Also mildly surprised we didn't read this book, seems just as relevant as Daemonologie /hj

I don't remember who recommended it, and it takes a specific position in a debate, so I'm sure there's some sectarian element that's beyond my understanding.

One other thing about agriculture, is that the american landscapes were intensively managed for thousands of years to produce what humans needed. Europeans were often oblivious to the sophisticated agricultural technology, as it did not resemble the "farming" they were accustomed to. So they didn't recognize the extent of the interventions which had produced to the "garden of eden" they conquered. While things eventually unraveled due to the maintainers being murdered, displaced, or otherwise prevented from keeping things up, the europeans often wandered into environments which "nature" had provisioned with a bounty of goods, there for the picking.

The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View talks about how central the new Capitalist concept of "improvement" was to property rights. In France, still operating under a purely Feudalist mode of production, the job of a land speculator was to find or fabricate claims to land; in proto-Capitalist Britain, a land speculator's job was to calculate how much profit could be wrung out of a parcel of land. Under this new conception, the indigenous Americans had not squeezed every bit of utility out of the soil (depleting it of nutrients, of course) and thus had not "improved" the land and had no claim to it.

I've read The Origins of the Modern World and liked it a lot. The concept of fossil fuels as fixed solar energy that allows one to (temporarily) not be limited by the cycle of solar energy circulation really stuck with me. My allusions to China and India are heavily informed by that book.

I haven't, but it's on my list now.

Thanks for the overview! I have some of these pieces but it's very helpful to have things laid out. Definitely hadn't thought about how the Crusades formed a shared experience in foreign conquest.

Both the naked extraction of resources and Unequal Exchange were vital to the development of early European Capitalism. But (at least according to the book I've found with the most persuasive hypothesis, The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View) Capitalism was born in the English countryside when rents became subject to market prices and assessed land value, creating a systemic incentive to Improve (vital concept in early capitalist concepts of property relations) the land by farmers.

In my (relatively uneducated) view, it seems like Capitalism (compared to Feudalism) would bring massive advantages in productive capacity and ability to sustain large and increasingly urban populations.

Saudis are insanely defensive about their disgusting slave country. A thoroughly Israeli people https://x.com/NerdeenKiswani/status/1968679495637799223