onoira

you are probably fine without learning Swedish in a meaningful manner, but if you are planning to become a citizen it is not unreasonable a requirement.

i had a rant all prepared for this comment, along the lines of 'yeah but they're not doing anything to make learning the language or integrating any easier; they're just adding further alientation and precarity into their lives'… but i realise all those words would be wasted because that's the point.

the rightwing government doesn't want people to integrate. they want to give every migrant such an acute case of Ulysses syndrome that they burn out and fail.

i have heard from people there that they just completely broke down after receiving their citizenship. they spent the years on a residency permit in unfurnished apartments with no lasting or heavy investments in society. they didn't get medical or psychological treatment when they needed it, and they didn't participate politically and stayed in their lane, living in effective peonage to their employers and trying to be model migrants and manage their energy levels so as not to draw any attention to themselves. they were too afraid to make any longlasting commitments in case it would all just be taken away from them on three-month's notice. such a weight lifted from their shoulders that all the stress came barreling out and they crashed hard. this news — that their citizenship can be taken away on vagueties of 'national security' (most of the people i know there are activists), or because of 'crimes' committed long ago in their home countries, or that the rules could apply retroäctively — have brought back their stress right when they were just recovering and finally felt safe digging into their new permanent life.

it doesn't matter that these policies are 'targeted' at 'terrorists' and gangs. these changes affect everyone who migrates to Sweden for any reason. the government's habit of wildly changing the rules every 6 months isn't helping.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

— Mikhail Bakunin, God and the state, Chapter 2

Expertise merely refers to one’s knowledge or skill in a particular field, but my understanding of CPR or ability to bake shortbread cookies does not make me an authority over you. Other than the conflation of force and authority, this is one of the most common confusions people have about anarchism, made worse by the fact that there are some anarchists who still use authority to refer to both command and expertise just because Bakunin did. Personally, I find that creates needless confusion. If you’re using the word authority to describe everything from slavery to knowing how to build a bridge, then why use the word at all? Just use the word expertise when you’re talking about expertise. Listening to medical advice isn’t a hierarchy. Having expertise doesn’t give me the right to command you unless I hold a position in a hierarchical power structure that grants me that authority. As Bakunin himself said:

...we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial.

— Andrewism, How Anarchy Works » Dissecting Authority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU)

I highly recommend reading in full that section from Andrewism. It's no more than 5 minutes to read.

I don’t like unions strongarming companies

'i don't like it when the people who produce value for the capitalists have a say in their working conditions'

'i don't like it when corporations are forced to comply with the rule of law'

'i don't like it when neoliberals have to comply with local labour market practises in foreign markets'

'i don't like it when other people pull the boot out of my mouth'

I didn’t even say anything bigoted!

ok: https://beehaw.org/modlog?page=1&userId=9724172

It’s crazy and it’s tragic.

take a drink every time a narc parent uses the words 'weird' or 'crazy' to describe being treated like the horrible person that they are.

… and how exactly will Trudeau's resignation help?

Can you please explain what you are basing this critique on?

reviews i've read, and my own bygone notes and experience with The Dictator's Handbook and The Logic of Political Survival. my critique is leveraged at both of them, because my memories of them are intertwined, and the former is based heavily on the latter.

The Logic of Political Survival is based in game theory (rational choice model), which falls apart when you consider that people don't/can't always process all information and don't/can't always minmax their choices. the supporting data for selectorate theory is biased; correcting for this bias heavily diminishes the findings.

on the theory's usefulness as a tool for analysis: Gallagher and Hanson wrote two papers ([1],[2]) about it. tl;dr: it's not a great predictor; it doesn't explain illiberal systems or peripheral politics; and it doesn't account for plurality.

What I find interesting in Selectorate Theory is that it links power and economics in a quantifiable way.

i can appreciate that; i also have a STEM background. if you're modelling a core liberal democracy, i think it does well enough. however, i think it's oversimplified, which is a common problem i find with quantified theories of social phenomena. it also probably falls apart if you want to predict the effects of a system reform/upheaval, or beyond.

that's why i refer to the philosophers and social scientists. their theories aren't calculus, but they provide the framework for understanding the origins and also what rough shape the outcome can take, without being too prescriptive.

I think that it’s a very useful tool that seems to be completely ignored in left/socialist circles.

it's probably ignored because there are many other theorists with more nuanced analyses of power: Marx, Gramsci, Marcuse, Foucault…

The Dictator's Handbook doesn't offer much in that regard. it assumes homo economicus and bases conclusions on flawed studies. selectorate theory has thus far failed as a tool for analysing — or making predictions about — states in the periphery.

i can relate to this. i can hear the electricity coursing thru the walls. lately it's been so loud that it keeps me up at night. no one else hears it, but i do.

i had to flip the breaker to the bedroom to quiet it down enough to sleep.

Work Timers

adding to this: when i'm severely overwhelmed, i skip goalsetting entirely. instead of 'i will/can do X in these N minutes', it's 'i will work on X for these N minutes', and whether i finish or not is irrelevant. hell, i might not even care if i make any progress, just that i spent the time alotted focusing only on doing something related to the task, even if it's just to stare at it. i might break it into smaller steps first. i like using goblin.tools if i'm stuck — just mash out a 700 word unformatted misspelt rant and get a list of stuff, then have the magic todo break it down further, and discard whatever doesn't make sense. i used this method to shorten showering down from 20 minutes of forgetting what i'm doing, to a hyperoptimised 8 minute routine.

sometimes i realise it's easier/faster than it sounded in my head, and so i'm more motivated and focused for a second round at it. other times it's just as hard as i imagined, or there's steps i didn't consider, but i've tried it and i now have concrete data to build a plan for the second go. all the while, i try to focus only on the next smallest step toward completion, one step at a time.

oh, this must be why i have you tagged as 'rule lawyer debate pervert'

randian techbros, i swear.