Notices by crows call me breadlady (garbados@friend.camp), page 5

@AnthonyJK yeah you should absolutely know this article’s specifics are a runaround from incoherent trolls using trans women as a shield to attack people of color. do not get sucked into their shit

@AnthonyJK i’m sorry, but like, do you know who the eris sadiq means is? i got to that part and either we are talking about someone who isn’t a well-known fucking nazi or i’m being trolled

#feditips

say goodbye to using targeted ads as a form of tarot. i know that discussing what computers think of you has become a common icebreaker, so this may be a difficult adjustment. instead, try sharing what you think of computers!

NO: the algorithm thinks i’m a chaser with hormonal acne ha ha

YES: it is cruel that we have forced sand to think. why would we do that

@paninid respectfully i would prefer to be cited in a quotation rather than have my words plagiarized

@paninid look, i'm glad you like my post. if you want to share it, go ahead! but by stripping author data, we lose any known relationship to our art. a society that is free to remix is freer than one that can't, so idk, you can do what you want, but i hope you'll consider thinking about posts as art with authors. if you want to riff, why not cite?

@Nightmancore keep the handle 👍

you don't want bsky. you don't even want fedi. you want yourhandle at the library dot a society worth living in

i bought "oat nog" because i'm a sucker for eggnog but i've become lactose intolerant. it tastes like thin eggnog, perfectly good, especially as creamer. i looked at the ingredients. it's just oat milk with extra sugar and flavoring. i accept that i am a machine whose inputs can be designed to achieve calculated outputs; furthermore i accept that oat nog makes great creamer.

> Even BlueSky takes investment because capitalism insists all things must profit, but it only binds them to the investor, and we all fucking know how that turns out. Nobody understands the powers we are really dealing with, so we don't build things that can house them, and we strip-mine our attempts.

all my software essays must include a minimum of 20% unhinged content:

> The future is never sending troops except the people we become.

@cwebber respectfully when would have been a better time for the great satan

prices produce privation. they necessitate absence. on survival goods, that means starvation, sickness, and death from exposure, are all required results of capitalism. it can never be convinced to be rid of these evils any more than it can be persuaded to bury itself. therefore capitalism must be destroyed.

you might think, can UBI abolish poverty? unless you institute strict price controls on survival goods, profiteers will simply raise prices to absorb UBI. the profiteer must be stripped of all power in this domain, so that survival can never be withheld. and once you have all those price controls, you will realize it is better to organize essential logistics without price as a guiding principle. abolish starvation with free food — how obvious

i want to communicate a reframing of a lefty attack on “billionaires and inequality” into one of radically questioning what wealth is, ultimately to see things like transforming the land relation as necessary aspects of a just transformation. it isn’t that they’re rich. the money is made of blood

like decolonization is not a special interest plank but the foundation of unifying aspects like antifascism and prison+police abolition and climate justice+stewardship. i want leftists to see that more than wanting a pie made of genocide to be divided equally

the machine isn’t stealing your job, your boss just doesn’t think of you as a person

cool fact: the original luddites didn’t oppose technology but rather the bosses using new tech to disenfranchise workers! the bosses then had the luddites murdered in the streets and their arguments were replaced with “tech bad 🤢” to prevent others from carrying on their challenge to industrial authorities

conflict avoidance and the sentiment “never go negative” merely allow unprincipled pissants to move unhindered in your spaces. do you believe in a cohesive compassion or do you just want to make nice, never recognizing who is absent for who you allow?

i do not speak to be mean. i speak to hold accountable.

i don't get it. libs don't think it through. why chase the electorate's statistically-probabilistic views rather than, i don't know, hold a coalition together with a cohesive strategic theory, aka believing in something, anything, enough to think it through? maybe blue team believes in nothing