But sure, call it “ethnical cleansing” if pedantry helps you sleep better at night…
And I’ll still continue using the UN recognized definition of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” which by my understanding fits both the American and Palestinian atrocities.
So saying “wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth” followed by almost continuous bombardment isn’t in your eyes evidence of specific intent and action, because they haven’t wiped them out yet? Therefore, by your own definition, the colonizing Europeans never commited genocide against the indigenous American population, because there’s still native Americans left and they have their own nature reserves to reside in?
In a coop setting you would agree on collective individual responsibilities so everyone has to contribute and spread the burden in a way that doesn’t silo people into unequal jobs.
As someone who lived in a condo - the main issues were that because people individually own their flats - I feel there’s a distinct line between private and shared ownership, making it easy to disregard communal duties.
Furthermore, because existing residents have little say in who gets to live in their building - you can end up in situations where someone can repeatedly break rules and norms (ie had a person smoke in the elevator for years despite being told not to) and nothing can really be done apart from trying to sue them which isn’t an effective way of dealing with problems.
In a coop setting people can democratically discuss and as a last resort even decide to part ways with individuals who won’t contribute (from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs obv) since on a hyper-local level everyone is immediately involved with the living conditions of everyone else around them.
Yep, the idea is that because the people living at the coop decide who they want to live with (both for existing and new members) the org would have an incentive to cooperate and resolve issues, instead of relying on a third party to be an arbiter that doesn’t have a direct stake in your living conditions.
Depends on your region, but in general if you can find at least 3 people you want to live with, you can apply to establish a cooperative.
Do note that securing a mortgage would probably be a bit harder than buying on your own, but with more people you can acquire a larger space and split the costs that way.
Fundamentally, it’s unlikely it will be cheaper than buying outright - however you’ll have a community of people to rely on if at any point you become temporarily unable to pay your installments, which can make it safer than self-ownership.
But the biggest plus comes when the mortgage is paid off, as then the coop can decide if you’d rather slash prices to include just bills, or keep the same monthly amount but put the extra towards a shared coop fund that can be used to convert more landlord owned properties into cooperative housing.
In my area - non-mortgaged coop properties have about 40% lower monthly payments.
establish 👏 tenant 👏 owned 👏 cooperatives 👏
idk I feel its pretty useful in finding others like you? also how do you mean “make survey data more difficult”? like not inconveniencing others is commendable, but this sounds like internalized enby erasure?
also if you’re not represented in survey data, it makes it that much easier for conservative proponents to point at gender surveys and say “well there’s practically no one who doesn’t fall in the binary buckets so there obviously must be something wrong with them and not the system”
as in, being yourself is the goal, but by being publicly open about it, you help others feel confident in pursuing what their authentic self is.
but again, you do you boo and I’m gonna keep being me by confusing all the guys in the gym lockers 🤪
please enlighten me how building an entire civilization on finite fossil fuel resources doesn’t come to an end
The real estate company’s ads for ‘presale’ lots in Gaza and plans to ‘prepare the groundwork for a return’ to the enclave were meant to be ‘a joke’ for its followers
Ha ha, what if we pretend to build houses on bombed people’s land. that would be funny i think.
It’s because the concept of a particle having definite properties like position and momentum doesn’t hold in the quantum world. Until a measurement is made, the particle is in a superposition of all possible states but with different probabilities, these are described by its wavefunction, which encodes what the various particle variables (position, spin, momentum, etc.) could be.
So, it’s not a measurement issue that introduces the uncertainty; it’s already there as a fundamental property of the particle’s quantum state.
Measurements merely “choose” one of the many possible outcomes, collapsing the wavefunction and in turn making exact measurement of other complementary properties impossible (because the mere act of measuring one variable causes the system to transition into a new state with its own set of probabilities and uncertainties for all variables)
And because these are inherent limitations dictated by quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, even if we could know the current state of every particle in the universe, we still couldn’t accurately predict the future because of that fundamental uncertainty.
Still let’s not forget the right-wing policies from their manifesto:
Increasing military spending by 13 billion
Increase police funding
More border security force to “stop the boats”
Build more prisons
Pour money into polluting industries (car gigafactories, steel production, “carbon capture”)
Keep oil and gas production in the North Sea for decades, with the only focus on jobs and none on environmental issues.
So yeah I guess it’s better to have an authoritarian social-ish democratic state than an outright fascist one but that’s not a very high bar and will only work until the climate crisis boils us all alive :)