Answer to final jeopardy
/r/Jeopardy!
2010.09.18 21:47 CakeSmack /r/Jeopardy!
/Jeopardy, a subreddit for the appreciation of The World's Greatest Game Show: JEOPARDY! This subreddit is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or operated by Jeopardy Productions or Sony Pictures.
2008.01.25 07:35 funny
Welcome to Funny, Reddit's largest humour depository.
2008.12.14 03:00 AnswerReddit: it's kinda like Jeopardy
2023.03.25 06:32 Specialist-Warthog-4 Some arguments against marxism from the new book Anti-Marx from the economist Juan Ramon Rallo
Last year Juan Ramón Rallo published a book called Anti-Marx in which he tries to systematically dismantle the Marxist ideology as a whole, the book has about 1800 pages so it's an incredibly long and rigorous book. I will present 4 arguments he used against marxism in his book (these extracts are translated from Spanish).
1 - Wealth is not only created by producing goods, but by producing relatively more useful goods for those who value them relatively more.
For Marx, value is a phenomenon of a market economy (and therefore a capitalist economy) in which human beings produce separately for the market. In the market, each human being produces goods anarchically with respect to others but needs to coordinate with them, which is achieved by establishing equivalences between the productive contribution of each independent human being. This social comparison of productive contributions in the market is value, namely, the social labor time necessary to manufacture each type of commodity.
On the one hand, the dialectic between the value of a commodity and its market price determines whether we should socially increase or reduce the production of that commodity. On the other hand, the value created by each worker establishes their budget constraint: the more value they have contributed to society in the form of goods, the more value they can obtain from society in the form of goods.
In this sense, a society will be materially richer the more economic goods (use values) it possesses, although in a capitalist society all (or almost all) of these use values will be presented to us as a mass of values: commodities that require a certain amount of social labor to be created and that are distributed according to the social labor they represent. For this reason, if labor productivity increases, the same mass of value can represent a greater mass of use values. For example, if last year we were able to produce 1,000 cars with 100,000 hours of social labor but this year we can produce 2,000 cars with the same 100,000 hours of social labor, the material wealth of society has increased even though the value has remained constant.
However, this last point is only true when there are changes in labor productivity. If labor productivity remains constant, the mass of social value can serve as a proxy, or should serve as a proxy, for the material wealth of a society. That is, material wealth can only be increased by increasing value (we can only become richer by working more hours to produce more goods). However, this last proposition is doubly mistaken.
First, a society can become richer by allocating the same amount of social labor (creating the same added value) to produce goods that are more useful than those that were previously produced. If in 100,000 hours of social labor we can produce either good a or good b, and good a is more useful to us than good b (although both are useful), we will become richer by ceasing to produce good b and producing good a instead. The economic problem that a society must solve is not only to allocate social labor to produce objects that satisfy human needs, but to satisfy the relatively more important human needs.
Second, a society can become richer not only through the production of goods but also through their better distribution. If individual A owns use value a and individual B owns use value b, and A values b more than a and B values a more than b, exchanging those use values (without increasing the amount of values or values in society) will make that society richer. Again, the reason why that society will be richer is that the same use values, but distributed differently, will allow for the satisfaction of more important human needs. For example, a film enthusiast can enjoy novels and a novel enthusiast can enjoy films, but both will achieve higher ends (in their scale of preferences) if the film enthusiast gives up novels to watch movies and the novel enthusiast gives up movies to read novels.
Since Marx did not incorporate the concept of "marginality" into his analysis of use value (there are more or less important use values), he also did not take into consideration that the social production of use values consists not only of transforming nature through human labor in order to manufacture use values, but also of transforming nature through sufficiently coordinated social labor to produce relatively more important use values and distribute them to those producers who value them relatively more.
2 - The only factor of social production is not just human labor, but also time, risk, and entrepreneurial knowledge.
For Marx, there are only two factors of production: nature and labor. Every production process can be developed through combinations of both. All other factors of production (such as a machine) are nothing more than the result of nature transformed by labor. However, there are actually three other factors.
First, time. It is not possible to produce without time. There is no production process that does not take place in time. From the moment we start producing until we finish producing, a period of time necessarily elapses. In that sense, we can only work during a period of time if we are willing to wait until that period of time is over to enjoy the product of our work. For example, if we need to work for five years to produce a car and we are not willing to wait five years to enjoy a car, we cannot produce the car.
Second, risk. It is not possible to produce without assuming risk. There is no production process that does not involve risks (the probability that the result of that production process is not the desired one). No production process is purely deterministic, but rather any process is subject to random conditions that generate uncertainty about what its final result will be (at least, random conditions with respect to the information available to the worker). In that sense, we can only work if we are willing to assume the uncertainty of a production process. For example, if producing a car involves exposing ourselves to the risk of failing in its production and, therefore, losing all the time dedicated to its production, we cannot produce the car if we are not willing to assume such risks.
And third, entrepreneurial information. It is not possible to produce without information: information related to what, how, and for whom to produce (entrepreneurial information). What distinguishes humans from animals, for Marx, is precisely that humans direct their productive action towards a deliberately chosen purpose: that is, there is a rationality behind their work. We know what we want to produce, how we have to produce it, and for whom we have to produce it. Without this entrepreneurial information, human labor would be a mere waste of energy. All of which is particularly relevant in a market economy, where we do not produce for ourselves in an isolated environment, but we produce for others (for the market) competing with others who may have better information about what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it. For example, if we lack information on how to manufacture a car, we cannot produce it; but in the market, if we lack the best information on how to produce a car, we will also be unable to produce it since others will produce it.
To some extent, we could think that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information are features specific to human labor. And they are: time, risk, and information can only be expressed productively through human labor. But it is important to realize that, even when they are expressed productively through human labor, they are dissociable from human labor: that is, the human being who, within a certain production process, takes charge of waiting, assumes risks, or provides entrepreneurial information does not have to be the same human being who works producing use values through the time, risk, and entrepreneurial information provided by other human beings. That is why we can characterize them as independent or separable factors of production from human labor. Marx, however, trapped by the labor theory of value, could not contemplate other factors of social production different from labor itself.
3 - Capitalists and wage earners are not antagonistic economic classes.
For Marx, wage labor and capital are antagonistic economic categories. Capital is non-labor and labor is non-capital. Each one affirms itself by negating the other. Capital cannot exist (socially) without exploiting wage earners, and wage earners cannot exist (socially) without being exploited by capitalists. Such a contradictory conception of capital and wage labor derives from Marx's conception of value: if wealth is only created socially through labor and capitalists do not work (at least in their pure form, leaving aside capitalists who exercise managerial functions within a company), then capitalists can only enrich themselves by impoverishing workers, that is, by appropriating the wealth that only workers have created (exploitation).
From this perspective, the emancipation of wage earners requires the social annihilation of capital: that is, socializing the ownership of the means of production so that all the wealth created solely by social labor remains in the hands of all workers. The worker does not benefit in any way from the existence of the capitalist and, therefore, can only enter into an objectively contradictory relationship with him.
The reality, however, is that the capitalist does contribute to the social creation of wealth: the capitalist is the person who specializes in socially providing time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to a production process, thereby expanding the productive capacities of those workers who would not (or could not) provide that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to different production processes on their own and who, therefore, could not produce certain use values. Abolishing the social function of the capitalist is equivalent to imposing forced socialization of savings, forced socialization of risks, and forced socialization of the process of creating entrepreneurial information. It makes it impossible, therefore, for there to be transfers of time, risk, and information between human beings: that a wage earner can cooperatively associate with a capitalist so that the latter absorbs all the waiting, all the risk, and all the creation of information that the former cannot or does not want to take on, and that precisely because the capitalist absorbs them, the former can dedicate themselves to working in a way that they could not work without their association with the capitalist.
By refusing to recognize the wealth-generating functions of the capitalist (as a social role, not as a natural category), Marx only saw social antagonism of interests between wage earners and capitalists, when productive alliances based on the harmony of interests can also exist between them. This does not mean that conflicts of interests cannot also arise between the parties in any cooperative relationship of any kind: a marriage can be a life project that both spouses consider to be mutually beneficial, but that does not prevent conflicts from emerging within the marriage that can sometimes even lead to its dissolution.
Therefore, the class struggle between capitalists and wage earners is not a necessary byproduct of the historical evolution of human societies with a certain degree of material development (in dialectical contradiction to their form of social organization), but a byproduct of the inoculation of certain mistaken ideas that, by altering the social worldview of individuals inserted in certain productive relations, poison those individuals and promote social war instead of active, mutually beneficial and good faith cooperation.
4 - It is rational to subordinate the production of use values to the market.
According to Marx, the alienation of labor in the market implies our subordination to collective irrationality: the market dictates what we should produce socially, how we should produce it socially, and for whom we should produce it socially, without anyone controlling the market and, therefore, without anyone being able to inject rationality and coherence into the entire process of production and social distribution blindly directed by the market. And given that the difference between humans and animals lies in the rationality that humans inject into their work, capitalism, by depriving our social work of rationality (of conscious collective control), would be dehumanizing us, turning us into mere automatons without will in the service of the social force of capital. Within the market, what is produced is not what is useful to us as human beings, but only what is useful to capital for revalorization: capital devours us, engulfs us, and vampirizes us.
In reality, however, a society composed of individuals with heterogeneous preferences and very fragmented information about the preferences of the rest of individuals and about potentially available technological options, can aspire to no more than discovering what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it through decentralized experimentation by different coalitions of individuals on different proposals of social wealth and through the competitive appearance of these different proposals of social wealth before an impersonal arbitrator like the market. If there are different social opinions about what should be produced, how it should be produced, and for whom it should be produced, the way to discover which of all these diverse opinions brings us closer to making relatively more useful goods for those producers who value them relatively more is by allowing the formation of human teams (composed to varying degrees of capital and labor) and having these teams (companies) compete with each other based on how much they can expect, how much risk they want to assume, and how much good information they have regarding the creation of wealth for third parties.
From that perspective, submitting to the market to socially discover what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it is not irrational: it is using the best social algorithm we know to maximize our wealth. It is precisely that no one controls that social algorithm in isolation that enables a truly unbiased competition among the various options for creating wealth: the market acts as a blind watchmaker in the social evolution of wealth. We subordinate use values to values to maximize the quantitative and qualitative creation of use values. The irrational thing would be precisely the opposite: to repudiate the market and pretend to replace it with mechanisms for coordinating social production that, ignoring the limits of human reason, lead us to make worse productive and distributive decisions than we could dynamically make through the market. It is not that the market provides perfect solutions to the problems of social coordination in the generation of wealth: it is only less imperfect than the rest of forms of social organization.
submitted by Specialist-Warthog-4 to DebateCommunism [link] [comments]
1 - Wealth is not only created by producing goods, but by producing relatively more useful goods for those who value them relatively more.
For Marx, value is a phenomenon of a market economy (and therefore a capitalist economy) in which human beings produce separately for the market. In the market, each human being produces goods anarchically with respect to others but needs to coordinate with them, which is achieved by establishing equivalences between the productive contribution of each independent human being. This social comparison of productive contributions in the market is value, namely, the social labor time necessary to manufacture each type of commodity.
On the one hand, the dialectic between the value of a commodity and its market price determines whether we should socially increase or reduce the production of that commodity. On the other hand, the value created by each worker establishes their budget constraint: the more value they have contributed to society in the form of goods, the more value they can obtain from society in the form of goods.
In this sense, a society will be materially richer the more economic goods (use values) it possesses, although in a capitalist society all (or almost all) of these use values will be presented to us as a mass of values: commodities that require a certain amount of social labor to be created and that are distributed according to the social labor they represent. For this reason, if labor productivity increases, the same mass of value can represent a greater mass of use values. For example, if last year we were able to produce 1,000 cars with 100,000 hours of social labor but this year we can produce 2,000 cars with the same 100,000 hours of social labor, the material wealth of society has increased even though the value has remained constant.
However, this last point is only true when there are changes in labor productivity. If labor productivity remains constant, the mass of social value can serve as a proxy, or should serve as a proxy, for the material wealth of a society. That is, material wealth can only be increased by increasing value (we can only become richer by working more hours to produce more goods). However, this last proposition is doubly mistaken.
First, a society can become richer by allocating the same amount of social labor (creating the same added value) to produce goods that are more useful than those that were previously produced. If in 100,000 hours of social labor we can produce either good a or good b, and good a is more useful to us than good b (although both are useful), we will become richer by ceasing to produce good b and producing good a instead. The economic problem that a society must solve is not only to allocate social labor to produce objects that satisfy human needs, but to satisfy the relatively more important human needs.
Second, a society can become richer not only through the production of goods but also through their better distribution. If individual A owns use value a and individual B owns use value b, and A values b more than a and B values a more than b, exchanging those use values (without increasing the amount of values or values in society) will make that society richer. Again, the reason why that society will be richer is that the same use values, but distributed differently, will allow for the satisfaction of more important human needs. For example, a film enthusiast can enjoy novels and a novel enthusiast can enjoy films, but both will achieve higher ends (in their scale of preferences) if the film enthusiast gives up novels to watch movies and the novel enthusiast gives up movies to read novels.
Since Marx did not incorporate the concept of "marginality" into his analysis of use value (there are more or less important use values), he also did not take into consideration that the social production of use values consists not only of transforming nature through human labor in order to manufacture use values, but also of transforming nature through sufficiently coordinated social labor to produce relatively more important use values and distribute them to those producers who value them relatively more.
2 - The only factor of social production is not just human labor, but also time, risk, and entrepreneurial knowledge.
For Marx, there are only two factors of production: nature and labor. Every production process can be developed through combinations of both. All other factors of production (such as a machine) are nothing more than the result of nature transformed by labor. However, there are actually three other factors.
First, time. It is not possible to produce without time. There is no production process that does not take place in time. From the moment we start producing until we finish producing, a period of time necessarily elapses. In that sense, we can only work during a period of time if we are willing to wait until that period of time is over to enjoy the product of our work. For example, if we need to work for five years to produce a car and we are not willing to wait five years to enjoy a car, we cannot produce the car.
Second, risk. It is not possible to produce without assuming risk. There is no production process that does not involve risks (the probability that the result of that production process is not the desired one). No production process is purely deterministic, but rather any process is subject to random conditions that generate uncertainty about what its final result will be (at least, random conditions with respect to the information available to the worker). In that sense, we can only work if we are willing to assume the uncertainty of a production process. For example, if producing a car involves exposing ourselves to the risk of failing in its production and, therefore, losing all the time dedicated to its production, we cannot produce the car if we are not willing to assume such risks.
And third, entrepreneurial information. It is not possible to produce without information: information related to what, how, and for whom to produce (entrepreneurial information). What distinguishes humans from animals, for Marx, is precisely that humans direct their productive action towards a deliberately chosen purpose: that is, there is a rationality behind their work. We know what we want to produce, how we have to produce it, and for whom we have to produce it. Without this entrepreneurial information, human labor would be a mere waste of energy. All of which is particularly relevant in a market economy, where we do not produce for ourselves in an isolated environment, but we produce for others (for the market) competing with others who may have better information about what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it. For example, if we lack information on how to manufacture a car, we cannot produce it; but in the market, if we lack the best information on how to produce a car, we will also be unable to produce it since others will produce it.
To some extent, we could think that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information are features specific to human labor. And they are: time, risk, and information can only be expressed productively through human labor. But it is important to realize that, even when they are expressed productively through human labor, they are dissociable from human labor: that is, the human being who, within a certain production process, takes charge of waiting, assumes risks, or provides entrepreneurial information does not have to be the same human being who works producing use values through the time, risk, and entrepreneurial information provided by other human beings. That is why we can characterize them as independent or separable factors of production from human labor. Marx, however, trapped by the labor theory of value, could not contemplate other factors of social production different from labor itself.
3 - Capitalists and wage earners are not antagonistic economic classes.
For Marx, wage labor and capital are antagonistic economic categories. Capital is non-labor and labor is non-capital. Each one affirms itself by negating the other. Capital cannot exist (socially) without exploiting wage earners, and wage earners cannot exist (socially) without being exploited by capitalists. Such a contradictory conception of capital and wage labor derives from Marx's conception of value: if wealth is only created socially through labor and capitalists do not work (at least in their pure form, leaving aside capitalists who exercise managerial functions within a company), then capitalists can only enrich themselves by impoverishing workers, that is, by appropriating the wealth that only workers have created (exploitation).
From this perspective, the emancipation of wage earners requires the social annihilation of capital: that is, socializing the ownership of the means of production so that all the wealth created solely by social labor remains in the hands of all workers. The worker does not benefit in any way from the existence of the capitalist and, therefore, can only enter into an objectively contradictory relationship with him.
The reality, however, is that the capitalist does contribute to the social creation of wealth: the capitalist is the person who specializes in socially providing time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to a production process, thereby expanding the productive capacities of those workers who would not (or could not) provide that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to different production processes on their own and who, therefore, could not produce certain use values. Abolishing the social function of the capitalist is equivalent to imposing forced socialization of savings, forced socialization of risks, and forced socialization of the process of creating entrepreneurial information. It makes it impossible, therefore, for there to be transfers of time, risk, and information between human beings: that a wage earner can cooperatively associate with a capitalist so that the latter absorbs all the waiting, all the risk, and all the creation of information that the former cannot or does not want to take on, and that precisely because the capitalist absorbs them, the former can dedicate themselves to working in a way that they could not work without their association with the capitalist.
By refusing to recognize the wealth-generating functions of the capitalist (as a social role, not as a natural category), Marx only saw social antagonism of interests between wage earners and capitalists, when productive alliances based on the harmony of interests can also exist between them. This does not mean that conflicts of interests cannot also arise between the parties in any cooperative relationship of any kind: a marriage can be a life project that both spouses consider to be mutually beneficial, but that does not prevent conflicts from emerging within the marriage that can sometimes even lead to its dissolution.
Therefore, the class struggle between capitalists and wage earners is not a necessary byproduct of the historical evolution of human societies with a certain degree of material development (in dialectical contradiction to their form of social organization), but a byproduct of the inoculation of certain mistaken ideas that, by altering the social worldview of individuals inserted in certain productive relations, poison those individuals and promote social war instead of active, mutually beneficial and good faith cooperation.
4 - It is rational to subordinate the production of use values to the market.
According to Marx, the alienation of labor in the market implies our subordination to collective irrationality: the market dictates what we should produce socially, how we should produce it socially, and for whom we should produce it socially, without anyone controlling the market and, therefore, without anyone being able to inject rationality and coherence into the entire process of production and social distribution blindly directed by the market. And given that the difference between humans and animals lies in the rationality that humans inject into their work, capitalism, by depriving our social work of rationality (of conscious collective control), would be dehumanizing us, turning us into mere automatons without will in the service of the social force of capital. Within the market, what is produced is not what is useful to us as human beings, but only what is useful to capital for revalorization: capital devours us, engulfs us, and vampirizes us.
In reality, however, a society composed of individuals with heterogeneous preferences and very fragmented information about the preferences of the rest of individuals and about potentially available technological options, can aspire to no more than discovering what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it through decentralized experimentation by different coalitions of individuals on different proposals of social wealth and through the competitive appearance of these different proposals of social wealth before an impersonal arbitrator like the market. If there are different social opinions about what should be produced, how it should be produced, and for whom it should be produced, the way to discover which of all these diverse opinions brings us closer to making relatively more useful goods for those producers who value them relatively more is by allowing the formation of human teams (composed to varying degrees of capital and labor) and having these teams (companies) compete with each other based on how much they can expect, how much risk they want to assume, and how much good information they have regarding the creation of wealth for third parties.
From that perspective, submitting to the market to socially discover what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it is not irrational: it is using the best social algorithm we know to maximize our wealth. It is precisely that no one controls that social algorithm in isolation that enables a truly unbiased competition among the various options for creating wealth: the market acts as a blind watchmaker in the social evolution of wealth. We subordinate use values to values to maximize the quantitative and qualitative creation of use values. The irrational thing would be precisely the opposite: to repudiate the market and pretend to replace it with mechanisms for coordinating social production that, ignoring the limits of human reason, lead us to make worse productive and distributive decisions than we could dynamically make through the market. It is not that the market provides perfect solutions to the problems of social coordination in the generation of wealth: it is only less imperfect than the rest of forms of social organization.
2023.03.25 06:31 Bizzuzz Diplomat Burnt Copper
 | I'm excited to announce that I have received my 3rd pair of Thursday boots. These are going to go through hell once I get back to work. I am pitting these against the cheap boots my company has sponsored. I will make an update post in the future. For now I'm going to take a few walks in these new diplomats. Once I return to work, I can answer questions, for now I will be breaking these in. I know Thursday is more of a luxury/style brand but I would like to test these boots, based off of the advertisements about their leather. The vibram soles will probably hold up well but let's see how the leather does. With the 3 pairs I've bought, I have nothing bad to say. Minimal break in period, fantastic look, now let's take a journey on durability with work. submitted by Bizzuzz to ThursdayBoot [link] [comments] Disclaimer: Before I get hate comments, I would like to say I bought these boots for a good price. I also bought these boots with the intention of comparing them to other boots that are of similar style but labeled as work boots. I paid a total of 167 for these and the boots my company sponsors are 156- with reimbursement. I will be paying out of pocket for these diplomats and I have not consulted Thursday about this. With that being said, I hope my post helps with Thursday and creating a work boot or with someone deciding to buy a boot, for work, from Thursday. I currently own 2 other pairs and they have minimal break in period. To anyone reading this and debating whether or not to pull the trigger on buying; I have pulled the trigger three times and three times I have not been disappointed. |
2023.03.25 06:31 ObiWorking P4G Playtime Report #8: Clearing the Fog
What is a Playtime Report? A Playtime Report is my mini-journalist series about lengthy games I’ve played, just sharing my feelings as well as my thoughts on the events that unfolded. Obviously, spoilers lie ahead.
THE DAY IS CURRENTLY 1/15
Hello there! It’s been a while since the previous Playtime Report, but Persona 4 is still hitting me hard with story. So to all 9 of the people that read this, kick back and enjoy more of my writing.
TRUE KILLER: You know, my opinion on this man has changed drastically over the course of Persona 4. Initially, I thought he was just the goofy sidekick. Then he showed some backbone throughout the story and my opinion of him grew brighter. Maybe he’s not as much of a joke as I thought. Then, he became a real G to me. A real homie, just a bit clumsy.
But I was wrong…
I was wrong all along…
TOHRU ADACHI IS THE KILLER!!!
Not only was Adachi the killer of Saki and Mayumi, but he was the mastermind behind this entire Cat-and-Mouse game with Mitsuo and Namatame! Adachi is horrifying levels of genius to somehow weave this web while managing both the false killer and the kidnapper.
And his confession only made it more horrifying. Seeing him force Ms. Yamano into the TV for being “just another worthless bitch” was genuinely morbid. Even he was shocked that the TV strategy worked.
But Saki’s was even worse. Not only was Adachi fully confident that the TV shoving would work, but he had been spying on Saki long enough to witness Namatame confronting her. That’s just downright creepy. Initially, I didn’t even notice the TV behind Saki and I thought he was going to assault her. Although he didn’t, he most certainly could have, which doesn’t ease me at all.
Mitsuo Kubo was already an established narcissistic nobody. He pounced at the opportunity of being seen as a murderer for the attention, and Adachi pounced at that opportunity. He handled Mitsuo in the station and forced him into the TV so he could show up on the midnight channel and act like he was running from the cops.
Namatame called the police station and was unlucky enough to get Adachi of all people on the line. He instantly knew what he was talking about and pushed him into his crazy kidnapping frenzy of “saving” people to make himself look like the killer.
In both of these characters’ scenarios, Adachi was definitely lucky. But it takes a special kind of smart to actually capitalize off of that luck in a way that makes him only further from exposure. And dear God, he really did it.
As for the dungeon itself, I have mixed feelings about it. I can’t really put my finger on what it’s supposed to symbolize. On one hand, I think it’s the Hell version of Inaba to show how much Adachi loves causing chaos. But on the other hand, I think it’s his version of rightfulness, as if his sense of entitlement has brought about a “correct” form of the world around him. On top of that, Adachi’s consistently casual manner about all his crimes only makes it more chilling. Also, am I dumb for JUST NOW realizing his necktie is lob-sided? I thought they made new profiles for after his reveal, but I looked back and his tie has been bent the whole game.
“I was supposed to be the best of the best, and instead they stick me in the boonies.”
As for finally confronting Adachi, his boss fight had a lot of twists. Not only does he have a Persona, but it’s MY Persona?! Why does he have Izanagi? Is he also a holder of the Fool arcana? And even after we beat him, a literal divine being emerged from within him.
AMENO-SAGIRI: Anemo-Sagiri is the god that reflects the desires of mankind.
“Humanity’s desires are my desires…”
As humans wishes to lie to themselves and live in blissful ignorance, Ameno-Sagiri thus creates the fog as a result. The truth becomes invisible. Only worry about your little circle around you in the world of fog. Keep the pain hidden, keep reality as an afterthought, live blissfully in the heavy fog. This was the being held inside Shadow Teddie. The being from the start of the game that spewed fog.
As for the boss fight, I love almost everything about it. The stage is set on a desert land, with a discernible sky. Is the background a sunrise, or a sunset? The perspective is up to the beholder’s interpretation. The music was really great too.
(“Live and face your punishment. That’s how it works in our world…”) Easily Yosuke’s best moment.
And so, thanks to Chie spamming Charge and God’s Hand, along with Naoto cheesing everything with the Mind Charge strat, we defeated Ameno-Sagiri, and cleared otherwordly fog clouding this world.
… … …
Wait, was that it? I suppose Ameno-Sagiri’s existence made sense with it being the source of the fog, but it felt kinda shoehorned to me. Unless there’s a something I’m just not understanding right now.
CLOSING: Either way, we’re nearing the end of this Persona 4 journey. April is pretty close, and unfortunately my time here is limited. But Margaret came to me in a dream??? And Marie wants to leave??? We can’t even catch a break during Christmas. Will the next Playtime Report be the last? There’s only one way to find out…
submitted by ObiWorking to persona4golden [link] [comments]
THE DAY IS CURRENTLY 1/15
Hello there! It’s been a while since the previous Playtime Report, but Persona 4 is still hitting me hard with story. So to all 9 of the people that read this, kick back and enjoy more of my writing.
TRUE KILLER: You know, my opinion on this man has changed drastically over the course of Persona 4. Initially, I thought he was just the goofy sidekick. Then he showed some backbone throughout the story and my opinion of him grew brighter. Maybe he’s not as much of a joke as I thought. Then, he became a real G to me. A real homie, just a bit clumsy.
But I was wrong…
I was wrong all along…
TOHRU ADACHI IS THE KILLER!!!
Not only was Adachi the killer of Saki and Mayumi, but he was the mastermind behind this entire Cat-and-Mouse game with Mitsuo and Namatame! Adachi is horrifying levels of genius to somehow weave this web while managing both the false killer and the kidnapper.
And his confession only made it more horrifying. Seeing him force Ms. Yamano into the TV for being “just another worthless bitch” was genuinely morbid. Even he was shocked that the TV strategy worked.
But Saki’s was even worse. Not only was Adachi fully confident that the TV shoving would work, but he had been spying on Saki long enough to witness Namatame confronting her. That’s just downright creepy. Initially, I didn’t even notice the TV behind Saki and I thought he was going to assault her. Although he didn’t, he most certainly could have, which doesn’t ease me at all.
Mitsuo Kubo was already an established narcissistic nobody. He pounced at the opportunity of being seen as a murderer for the attention, and Adachi pounced at that opportunity. He handled Mitsuo in the station and forced him into the TV so he could show up on the midnight channel and act like he was running from the cops.
Namatame called the police station and was unlucky enough to get Adachi of all people on the line. He instantly knew what he was talking about and pushed him into his crazy kidnapping frenzy of “saving” people to make himself look like the killer.
In both of these characters’ scenarios, Adachi was definitely lucky. But it takes a special kind of smart to actually capitalize off of that luck in a way that makes him only further from exposure. And dear God, he really did it.
As for the dungeon itself, I have mixed feelings about it. I can’t really put my finger on what it’s supposed to symbolize. On one hand, I think it’s the Hell version of Inaba to show how much Adachi loves causing chaos. But on the other hand, I think it’s his version of rightfulness, as if his sense of entitlement has brought about a “correct” form of the world around him. On top of that, Adachi’s consistently casual manner about all his crimes only makes it more chilling. Also, am I dumb for JUST NOW realizing his necktie is lob-sided? I thought they made new profiles for after his reveal, but I looked back and his tie has been bent the whole game.
“I was supposed to be the best of the best, and instead they stick me in the boonies.”
As for finally confronting Adachi, his boss fight had a lot of twists. Not only does he have a Persona, but it’s MY Persona?! Why does he have Izanagi? Is he also a holder of the Fool arcana? And even after we beat him, a literal divine being emerged from within him.
AMENO-SAGIRI: Anemo-Sagiri is the god that reflects the desires of mankind.
“Humanity’s desires are my desires…”
As humans wishes to lie to themselves and live in blissful ignorance, Ameno-Sagiri thus creates the fog as a result. The truth becomes invisible. Only worry about your little circle around you in the world of fog. Keep the pain hidden, keep reality as an afterthought, live blissfully in the heavy fog. This was the being held inside Shadow Teddie. The being from the start of the game that spewed fog.
As for the boss fight, I love almost everything about it. The stage is set on a desert land, with a discernible sky. Is the background a sunrise, or a sunset? The perspective is up to the beholder’s interpretation. The music was really great too.
(“Live and face your punishment. That’s how it works in our world…”) Easily Yosuke’s best moment.
And so, thanks to Chie spamming Charge and God’s Hand, along with Naoto cheesing everything with the Mind Charge strat, we defeated Ameno-Sagiri, and cleared otherwordly fog clouding this world.
… … …
Wait, was that it? I suppose Ameno-Sagiri’s existence made sense with it being the source of the fog, but it felt kinda shoehorned to me. Unless there’s a something I’m just not understanding right now.
CLOSING: Either way, we’re nearing the end of this Persona 4 journey. April is pretty close, and unfortunately my time here is limited. But Margaret came to me in a dream??? And Marie wants to leave??? We can’t even catch a break during Christmas. Will the next Playtime Report be the last? There’s only one way to find out…
2023.03.25 06:31 bizzy310 It's finally in my hands can't wait to build it...
 | submitted by bizzy310 to lego [link] [comments] |
2023.03.25 06:30 YTScale Selling business for crypto. Buyer willing to pay first. Should i be concerned?
I'm selling an online business for a high 5-figure amount.
The buyer is willing to pay with crypto before I transfer my business entity to him. Is there any possible way this goes wrong? I know wires could be sketchy, but crypto seems like a final deal where they money can't be reversed or I can't be scammed. Am I right thinking this way?
The transaction will likely take place this week, so I am just clarifying before it takes place. As for the buyer, he seems equally sketchy as he seem legit but tbh i don't really care what he does with the business once it is his. Once i get the payment and transfer the business to him, i don't intend on dragging anything out and will move on.
submitted by YTScale to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]
The buyer is willing to pay with crypto before I transfer my business entity to him. Is there any possible way this goes wrong? I know wires could be sketchy, but crypto seems like a final deal where they money can't be reversed or I can't be scammed. Am I right thinking this way?
The transaction will likely take place this week, so I am just clarifying before it takes place. As for the buyer, he seems equally sketchy as he seem legit but tbh i don't really care what he does with the business once it is his. Once i get the payment and transfer the business to him, i don't intend on dragging anything out and will move on.
2023.03.25 06:30 jedivader20 Brisbane All-Stations Train Challenge, Round 2: I got my record.
No long-winded post this time, just a brief write-up and some interesting stats.
Yesterday I went out to do the Brisbane all-stations train challenge again, this time with a buddy (poke__egg) and a renewed fire to get the time I was originally gunning for, 13 hours and 58 minutes.
Honestly, things could not have gone better for us. There were delays on the network but somehow we managed to dodge every bullet, every train was (close to) on time and we never missed a connecting service. Even the large numbers of people heading into the city for the footy games didn't slow us down.
I was posting progress on Facebook/Instagram and Poke was posting to Twitter (sorry QR and Translink media team for tagging y'all in 130+ posts), looks like we got noticed on Twitter but not Insta, oh well.
Doors opened on our final train to Roma Street at 19:29:44, giving us a finish time of 13:57:44, _just_ shy of my originally timetabled finish at 19:30. Proof is over on my Instagram.
Now to finalise routing for a possible 152 station run, which would include the Sunshine Coast/Gold Coast lines, preferably without the Roma St start/finish line as I can't find any route with that restriction that isn't less than 21 hours. Watch this space.
Stations Completed: 130/130Start Time: 5:32:00amFinish Time: 19:29:44pmTime Elapsed: 13:57:44, which is 1:10:40 faster than the previous time of 15:08:24
Without counting the Roma St-Beenleigh opening leg, and the Caboolture-Roma St finishing leg, all 130 stations were completed in 12 hours on the dot (6:29am-6:29pm)
Distance Travelled: 495.5kmTrain Tally: 9 NGR (774, 704, 742, 746, 773, 722, 763, 718, 715), 4 EMU (57/39, 43/50, 53/58, 55/40), 2 SMU (284/292, 282/290), 1 IMU (166)
Total Go Card fare: $24.12
submitted by jedivader20 to brisbane [link] [comments]
Yesterday I went out to do the Brisbane all-stations train challenge again, this time with a buddy (poke__egg) and a renewed fire to get the time I was originally gunning for, 13 hours and 58 minutes.
Honestly, things could not have gone better for us. There were delays on the network but somehow we managed to dodge every bullet, every train was (close to) on time and we never missed a connecting service. Even the large numbers of people heading into the city for the footy games didn't slow us down.
I was posting progress on Facebook/Instagram and Poke was posting to Twitter (sorry QR and Translink media team for tagging y'all in 130+ posts), looks like we got noticed on Twitter but not Insta, oh well.
Doors opened on our final train to Roma Street at 19:29:44, giving us a finish time of 13:57:44, _just_ shy of my originally timetabled finish at 19:30. Proof is over on my Instagram.
Now to finalise routing for a possible 152 station run, which would include the Sunshine Coast/Gold Coast lines, preferably without the Roma St start/finish line as I can't find any route with that restriction that isn't less than 21 hours. Watch this space.
Stations Completed: 130/130Start Time: 5:32:00amFinish Time: 19:29:44pmTime Elapsed: 13:57:44, which is 1:10:40 faster than the previous time of 15:08:24
Without counting the Roma St-Beenleigh opening leg, and the Caboolture-Roma St finishing leg, all 130 stations were completed in 12 hours on the dot (6:29am-6:29pm)
Distance Travelled: 495.5kmTrain Tally: 9 NGR (774, 704, 742, 746, 773, 722, 763, 718, 715), 4 EMU (57/39, 43/50, 53/58, 55/40), 2 SMU (284/292, 282/290), 1 IMU (166)
Total Go Card fare: $24.12
2023.03.25 06:30 NaturalDish8373 What is y’all’s opinion on this poly couple? @sean_t_adams @ibombshell @oliviaappleberry222
 | submitted by NaturalDish8373 to tiktokgossip [link] [comments] |
2023.03.25 06:30 fogcityphotos playing adult league as a newbie
Recently I've gotten very into baseball. It was a combination of playing the show and having several new friends that really love baseball, it really has grown on me a lot and I wish I had played as a kid. Lately I've been thinking about trying to play, but I am apprehensive about joining an adult league when I have zero experience playing. Like the most I did was teeball and I don't really remember it. In your experience, do people accept newbies or is it not something people really enjoy in a casual league. I've played other sports with mixed results in similar leagues. Any answers are greatly appreciated!
submitted by fogcityphotos to baseball [link] [comments]
2023.03.25 06:30 Common-Ad6862 need ur opinion on this:
so me & my group agreed to book a room sa lib for our final defense.. saang room ba maganda guys? haha yung may view sana 😅
submitted by Common-Ad6862 to dlsu [link] [comments]
2023.03.25 06:30 SoggyStreets Lost Made Man segments?
Hey, odd question, but it's driving me nuts. I remember getting into the Speakeasy interviews Paul did for Made Man on Youtube. Most of the interviews are still up. However, I remember Paul taking some time in a solo video to answer fan questions.
One of them was something alone the lines of "What is your biggest pet peeve?"
He made a meal of answering "If I haaaad to chose it would be - RACISM." It was hilarious and wholesome and I can't find it. Does it still exist in any form?
submitted by SoggyStreets to paulftompkins [link] [comments]
One of them was something alone the lines of "What is your biggest pet peeve?"
He made a meal of answering "If I haaaad to chose it would be - RACISM." It was hilarious and wholesome and I can't find it. Does it still exist in any form?
2023.03.25 06:30 KeepTheTownBrown My bf discovered the historial of videos on tiktok.
And i am anxious about the fact that he may be deleting things for his own benefit. In January i discovered he was watching erotic models on tiktok via his historial of videos seen (by this time, i don't think he did know about the fact that tiktok keeps an historial of all the videos you watched) and i was really really hurt and offended because it was the second time he did it, and he did it a day before our anniversary, it was simply ridiculous because he came to me to celebrate our anniversary like he never looked at other girls the day before and pretend i wouldn't notice it, i cried a lot that day, and again he promised me he would not do that again... now some days ago we were watching tiktoks together and he went looking for a fun video that he ''lost'' and went directly to the historial and i said to mysefl ''well, fuck, he finally discovered how i saw these fucking models even though his historial search was clean of anything sexual'' and i am now semi-convinced he wil definitely use this for his own benefit, i haven't yet asked him how he discovered it (it's not that difficult but i still have curiosity...), maybe i should? How can i know if he's not deleting anything suspicious?
I know you may wonder after all of this, why is he still using tiktok?
The reason is simply we don't live together so i doesn't have much sense for me to say ''don't use x app'' because is obvious he will do it anyway behind my back... it is how it is. It happened before.
so... this is me just venting, sorry if i made you lose your precious time, i feel so alone sometimes..
submitted by KeepTheTownBrown to loveafterporn [link] [comments]
I know you may wonder after all of this, why is he still using tiktok?
The reason is simply we don't live together so i doesn't have much sense for me to say ''don't use x app'' because is obvious he will do it anyway behind my back... it is how it is. It happened before.
so... this is me just venting, sorry if i made you lose your precious time, i feel so alone sometimes..
2023.03.25 06:30 michamc11 We are not God.
We might have a divine spark inside of us... be fostered by a greater consciousness... but we didn't - neither you nor I did - create this. We aren't a computer simulation, and we aren't the realization of a movie released in 1999. I believe there is a God, a creator, and that there is perhaps a reason (of not a purpose) to the great mystery. I believe a big mistake is pretending to have found the answer. I do understand and have been there myself on the epiphany-laden voyage that suggests something more promising of our own significance. I've come to feel personally that the mystery is deeper still. We don't understand it all, even after a profound psychedelic experience, and regardless of whether we're an astronaut or welder of submarines.
submitted by michamc11 to Psychonaut [link] [comments]
2023.03.25 06:30 Shaggy4Lyfe First build. How'd I do?
 | This is my second gaming PC I've owned, the first was a prebuilt because it was more convenient at the time. Since then I was able to buy all the parts needed to finally build the PC myself! I managed to get it up and running first try surprisingly with no issue besides xmp profile not wanting to work. submitted by Shaggy4Lyfe to pcmasterrace [link] [comments] Specs: i7 12700k RTX 4070ti 2x16 32gb ddr5 5200mhz MSI Pro Z690-A ddr5 motherboard 750W PSU All inside the Corsair 4000D (I'm excited to finally have this case as it looks really cool to me haha) I really underestimated the size of this GPU.. I made it work though, was a snug fit under the aio tubes. Also no, I will not be showing the 100% totally good looking, I'm definitely not lying, cable management I've done in the back. Let's keep our focus on the front of the computer :). |
2023.03.25 06:30 paradiseskintags0 https://www.outlookindia.com/outlook-spotlight/paradise-skin-tag-remover-reviews-mole-removal-scam-flawless-perfect-10-skin-tag-remover-news-271670
➢ Product Name –Paradise Skin Tag Remover
➢ Price –$59.95
➢ Work –Remove Skin Tag
➢ Rating –⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4.9
➢ Where to Buy –Visit Official Website (Click Here)
Paradise Skin Tag Remover is an effective solution to get rid of those concerning marks and moles on your skin. This is the most preferred skin treatment formula that removes extra growth because of some internal disorders. The unwanted lesions in your armpit, face, neck or any other body parts can be very heartbreaking. Both men and women need to get freedom from such dangerous growth that remains noticeable most of the time. The skincare formula delivers a complete treatment for such issues by acting as a vital remedy for such troubles.
The moment you scratch and wear clothes, these outgrowths can get affected and give you a lot of pain. It is very important to treat them painlessly with this strategic formula. You Are not required to undergo any surgery to get the results. Just eradicate all these dermatological issues without needing any health consultation.
Paradise Skin Tag Remover Claims
· Eliminates skin tags and ugly skin spots
· This serum is made of normal fixings
· Produces results rapidly
· It is totally ok for your skin
· Leaves your skin smooth and brilliant
Introducing Paradise Skin Tag Remover
Paradise Skin Tag Remover is a revolutionary treatment for skin scarring that needs to be addressed on time. It is a very healthy and easy way to get flawless skin. No matter whether you have outgrowth on your facial area or any part of the body, it should be removed because later on there can be a possibility of cancer. The users just need a couple of drops to be applied on the face so that you get a blemish free skin. The natural correction process of the serum takes place through deep skin penetration. The therapy eradicates the skin tags from the root for the healing process. You get fast acting outcomes in a span of eight hours only.
The skin formula lets you deal with skin moles, warts, lesions and outgrowth. The white deposit in the outgrowths Can be otherwise treated with the help of a stronger immunity. However, if you do not have the capacity to treat the skin problems naturally, use this particular healing process to get results.
Soon after 8 -10 hours, you are going to feel a slight tingling effect that denotes proper healing taking place. You should not repeat the product application before eight hours in a day. Also, if there is excessive inflammation in the skin, simply withdraw using the product and wash the affected area with water and soap solution. Paradise Skin Tag Remover is all about accelerating the skin healing process so that you never get those unwanted skin scarring ever again. Achieve flawless and blemish free skin with all in One effective solution. Do not undergo invasive remedies for treating skin diseases. Instead, try the formula that is easy to use and remains a very prominent option to treat the issue.
How Does It Work?
Our skin's state is impacted by different variables, including our age, sustenance, climate, and climate. Over the long run, the skin's capacity to fix itself dials back and doesn't do as such as fast as it ought to.
Paradise Skin Tag Remover is made from a mix old enough resisting synthetic compounds that cooperate to fix, light up, and smooth the skin to assist the skin with recovering its ability to fix and renew itself.
At the point when Paradise Skin Tag Remover is assimilated into the skin, the skin's degrees of collagen are expanded, empowering the skin to mend itself from the back to front.
What are the Pros and Cons of Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews?
This supplement comes with several drawbacks and advantages. By using this active product, you can enhance skin health and decrease aging concerns. Also, skin acne and tags can be eliminated by using this combination of natural components. Without causing any side effects, this product can deal with several skin problems. Here are the pros and drawbacks of the product:
Pros/Benefits –
· This product helps to enhance the tone of your skin in the meantime.
· It may enhance the radiance of your skin without any trouble.
· It can be applied to any part of the body.
· It generates an impactful, amazing, and long-lasting outcome.
·This cream can make your skin shiny and eliminate any spots, moles, or tags from the skin.
· In reality, this product is a kind of substitute for surgery.
· You don’t need to follow any prescription while using Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews.
Cons/Drawbacks –
· It can be obtained on the official website.
· It is best for those above 18 years.
· If you have skin allergies or other skin issues, it is important to consult with your dermatologist.
· Use it as per the prescriptions on the label of the product.
Use The Power of Natural Ingredients for Skin Healing
Paradise Skin Tag Remover ingredients are simple, effective, odorless and clear. The serum liquid delivers optimal results on regular application. You just have to wash your face and apply Paradise Skin Tag Remover having the following ingredients –
Sanguinaria canadensis
The flowering plant is native to Eastern North America and has been used as a healing agent for centuries., This time, it is added in a good quantity to Paradise Skin Tag Remover so that you have a rash of white blood cells or fighting away skin diseases.
Zincum muriatic
The mineral found in the crust of earth add as a natural disinfectant antiseptic and a strong agent for natural healing. When you want a blemish free skin that is free from irritation and any specific problem, this is an ingredient for it. We are going to experience an instant healing taking place with the unique blend that acts as an important choice. Never experienced the outcomes of harsh chemicals but experienced such a safe and benevolent option to cure all the type.
Any side effects of this product
Obviously, the point doesn't make such side-impacts. Things got from a blend of straightforward premium parts. Hence, there isn't anything surprising that it doesn't have an adverse consequence. Thing zero makes a horrendous difference. Individuals all around the world can utilize Paradise Skin Tag Remover decisively.
What Users Have to Say About Paradise Skin Tag Remover?
Have you ever personally used Paradise Skin Tag Remover? This is one of the most suitable options for kids, adults, ladies and gents. If you think that it is almost impossible to remove those skin scars that act as a blot to your natural beauty, trying this serum would absolutely transform your way of thinking. Do not get discouraged by unwonted marks but apply the formula for a couple of weeks to get rid of all the bumps your face has.
How Should You Use Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews?
If you want to use this cream, it is best to read the prescriptions on the label or the official website. First of all, this product comes in the form of gel or liquid. And, the application process is so simple for all men and women.
All you need to apply is a Paradise Skin Tag Remover on the surface of your skin. Fortunately, this cream can deliver instant effects within a few minutes. Just apply it on the specific or damaged area in a circular motion. Make sure to apply it for at least 5 minutes. In this way, you can also get distinctive results in a short period.
Is Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews Secure or Has Negative Impacts?
This product is very secure as per the official website. Plus, it does not have any negative impacts on your body. Because of its natural components, Paradise Skin Tag Remover is popular as a safe product. All of them are natural and can deal with several skin problems. As per the study, this product can help you to prevent painful and expensive surgical methods.
Where to Buy Paradise Skin Tag Remover
Assuming you are as yet pondering where to purchase Paradise Skin Tag Remover, you have two choices. You can take a stab at tracking down the authority item site all alone or you can click any picture or button on this page! Our connections will send you directly to the top-selling hostile to maturing cream so you can see what selective arrangements are going on.
Assuming you hustle, quite possibly you can guarantee a deal. This implies that you can evaluate the effective answer so that as long as about fourteen days could see your thought process. Anyway, would you say you are prepared to allow your skin to prosper so you can keep up with power and your alpha status? Click any picture or button on this page before provisions sell out!
Final Words
Paradise Skin Tag Remover makes the best elements for skin healing. It has some potential antimicrobial elements that can treat your skin and give smoother outcomes. The reassuring formula helps you to experience some great results in a span of one-day only.
Ordering more than two packs of the bottle would be very effective and promising in curing your skin. Help your face and other body parts to get the work ability of natural bioactive components. Choose the pleasant formula and remove the skin lesions for a straightforward outcome.
Many people simply stop feeling happy because of skin imperfections appearing with aging effect. When using Paradise Skin Tag Remover, you can Actively cure the stubbornest skin issues. The very natural formula technically improves your skin quality and it reduces the outgrowth without any pain. You get a healthier and glowing skin with natural oils, essential minerals and vitamins that dissolve in a moment after the product application.
Official Website:- https://www.outlookindia.com/outlook-spotlight/paradise-skin-tag-remover-reviews-mole-removal-scam-flawless-perfect-10-skin-tag-remover-news-271670
Get More info:- https://www.outlookindia.com/outlook-spotlight/paradise-skin-tag-remover-reviews-shocking-benefits-pros-cons-best-skin-tag-remover-paradise-side-effects-revealed-reports-2023--news-263728
Read More info:- https://www.deccanherald.com/brandspot/pr-spot/paradise-skin-tag-remover-scam-alart-paradise-skin-tag-remover-shark-tank-2023-reports-exposed-1193150.html
Pinterest: -https://www.pinterest.com/paradiseskintagsremove
Tumblr: -https://www.tumblr.com/paradiseskintagsremover
Twitter: -https://twitter.com/Paradisetag
https://www.quora.com/profile/Paradise-Skin-Tag-Remover-10/What-Is-Paradise-Skin-Tag-Remover-Paradise-Skin-Tag-Remover-https-www-outlookindia-com-outlook-spotlight-paradise
submitted by paradiseskintags0 to u/paradiseskintags0 [link] [comments]
➢ Price –$59.95
➢ Work –Remove Skin Tag
➢ Rating –⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4.9
➢ Where to Buy –Visit Official Website (Click Here)
Paradise Skin Tag Remover is an effective solution to get rid of those concerning marks and moles on your skin. This is the most preferred skin treatment formula that removes extra growth because of some internal disorders. The unwanted lesions in your armpit, face, neck or any other body parts can be very heartbreaking. Both men and women need to get freedom from such dangerous growth that remains noticeable most of the time. The skincare formula delivers a complete treatment for such issues by acting as a vital remedy for such troubles.
The moment you scratch and wear clothes, these outgrowths can get affected and give you a lot of pain. It is very important to treat them painlessly with this strategic formula. You Are not required to undergo any surgery to get the results. Just eradicate all these dermatological issues without needing any health consultation.
Paradise Skin Tag Remover Claims
· Eliminates skin tags and ugly skin spots
· This serum is made of normal fixings
· Produces results rapidly
· It is totally ok for your skin
· Leaves your skin smooth and brilliant
Introducing Paradise Skin Tag Remover
Paradise Skin Tag Remover is a revolutionary treatment for skin scarring that needs to be addressed on time. It is a very healthy and easy way to get flawless skin. No matter whether you have outgrowth on your facial area or any part of the body, it should be removed because later on there can be a possibility of cancer. The users just need a couple of drops to be applied on the face so that you get a blemish free skin. The natural correction process of the serum takes place through deep skin penetration. The therapy eradicates the skin tags from the root for the healing process. You get fast acting outcomes in a span of eight hours only.
The skin formula lets you deal with skin moles, warts, lesions and outgrowth. The white deposit in the outgrowths Can be otherwise treated with the help of a stronger immunity. However, if you do not have the capacity to treat the skin problems naturally, use this particular healing process to get results.
Soon after 8 -10 hours, you are going to feel a slight tingling effect that denotes proper healing taking place. You should not repeat the product application before eight hours in a day. Also, if there is excessive inflammation in the skin, simply withdraw using the product and wash the affected area with water and soap solution. Paradise Skin Tag Remover is all about accelerating the skin healing process so that you never get those unwanted skin scarring ever again. Achieve flawless and blemish free skin with all in One effective solution. Do not undergo invasive remedies for treating skin diseases. Instead, try the formula that is easy to use and remains a very prominent option to treat the issue.
How Does It Work?
Our skin's state is impacted by different variables, including our age, sustenance, climate, and climate. Over the long run, the skin's capacity to fix itself dials back and doesn't do as such as fast as it ought to.
Paradise Skin Tag Remover is made from a mix old enough resisting synthetic compounds that cooperate to fix, light up, and smooth the skin to assist the skin with recovering its ability to fix and renew itself.
At the point when Paradise Skin Tag Remover is assimilated into the skin, the skin's degrees of collagen are expanded, empowering the skin to mend itself from the back to front.
What are the Pros and Cons of Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews?
This supplement comes with several drawbacks and advantages. By using this active product, you can enhance skin health and decrease aging concerns. Also, skin acne and tags can be eliminated by using this combination of natural components. Without causing any side effects, this product can deal with several skin problems. Here are the pros and drawbacks of the product:
Pros/Benefits –
· This product helps to enhance the tone of your skin in the meantime.
· It may enhance the radiance of your skin without any trouble.
· It can be applied to any part of the body.
· It generates an impactful, amazing, and long-lasting outcome.
·This cream can make your skin shiny and eliminate any spots, moles, or tags from the skin.
· In reality, this product is a kind of substitute for surgery.
· You don’t need to follow any prescription while using Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews.
Cons/Drawbacks –
· It can be obtained on the official website.
· It is best for those above 18 years.
· If you have skin allergies or other skin issues, it is important to consult with your dermatologist.
· Use it as per the prescriptions on the label of the product.
Use The Power of Natural Ingredients for Skin Healing
Paradise Skin Tag Remover ingredients are simple, effective, odorless and clear. The serum liquid delivers optimal results on regular application. You just have to wash your face and apply Paradise Skin Tag Remover having the following ingredients –
Sanguinaria canadensis
The flowering plant is native to Eastern North America and has been used as a healing agent for centuries., This time, it is added in a good quantity to Paradise Skin Tag Remover so that you have a rash of white blood cells or fighting away skin diseases.
Zincum muriatic
The mineral found in the crust of earth add as a natural disinfectant antiseptic and a strong agent for natural healing. When you want a blemish free skin that is free from irritation and any specific problem, this is an ingredient for it. We are going to experience an instant healing taking place with the unique blend that acts as an important choice. Never experienced the outcomes of harsh chemicals but experienced such a safe and benevolent option to cure all the type.
Any side effects of this product
Obviously, the point doesn't make such side-impacts. Things got from a blend of straightforward premium parts. Hence, there isn't anything surprising that it doesn't have an adverse consequence. Thing zero makes a horrendous difference. Individuals all around the world can utilize Paradise Skin Tag Remover decisively.
What Users Have to Say About Paradise Skin Tag Remover?
Have you ever personally used Paradise Skin Tag Remover? This is one of the most suitable options for kids, adults, ladies and gents. If you think that it is almost impossible to remove those skin scars that act as a blot to your natural beauty, trying this serum would absolutely transform your way of thinking. Do not get discouraged by unwonted marks but apply the formula for a couple of weeks to get rid of all the bumps your face has.
How Should You Use Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews?
If you want to use this cream, it is best to read the prescriptions on the label or the official website. First of all, this product comes in the form of gel or liquid. And, the application process is so simple for all men and women.
All you need to apply is a Paradise Skin Tag Remover on the surface of your skin. Fortunately, this cream can deliver instant effects within a few minutes. Just apply it on the specific or damaged area in a circular motion. Make sure to apply it for at least 5 minutes. In this way, you can also get distinctive results in a short period.
Is Paradise Skin Tag Remover Reviews Secure or Has Negative Impacts?
This product is very secure as per the official website. Plus, it does not have any negative impacts on your body. Because of its natural components, Paradise Skin Tag Remover is popular as a safe product. All of them are natural and can deal with several skin problems. As per the study, this product can help you to prevent painful and expensive surgical methods.
Where to Buy Paradise Skin Tag Remover
Assuming you are as yet pondering where to purchase Paradise Skin Tag Remover, you have two choices. You can take a stab at tracking down the authority item site all alone or you can click any picture or button on this page! Our connections will send you directly to the top-selling hostile to maturing cream so you can see what selective arrangements are going on.
Assuming you hustle, quite possibly you can guarantee a deal. This implies that you can evaluate the effective answer so that as long as about fourteen days could see your thought process. Anyway, would you say you are prepared to allow your skin to prosper so you can keep up with power and your alpha status? Click any picture or button on this page before provisions sell out!
Final Words
Paradise Skin Tag Remover makes the best elements for skin healing. It has some potential antimicrobial elements that can treat your skin and give smoother outcomes. The reassuring formula helps you to experience some great results in a span of one-day only.
Ordering more than two packs of the bottle would be very effective and promising in curing your skin. Help your face and other body parts to get the work ability of natural bioactive components. Choose the pleasant formula and remove the skin lesions for a straightforward outcome.
Many people simply stop feeling happy because of skin imperfections appearing with aging effect. When using Paradise Skin Tag Remover, you can Actively cure the stubbornest skin issues. The very natural formula technically improves your skin quality and it reduces the outgrowth without any pain. You get a healthier and glowing skin with natural oils, essential minerals and vitamins that dissolve in a moment after the product application.
Official Website:- https://www.outlookindia.com/outlook-spotlight/paradise-skin-tag-remover-reviews-mole-removal-scam-flawless-perfect-10-skin-tag-remover-news-271670
Get More info:- https://www.outlookindia.com/outlook-spotlight/paradise-skin-tag-remover-reviews-shocking-benefits-pros-cons-best-skin-tag-remover-paradise-side-effects-revealed-reports-2023--news-263728
Read More info:- https://www.deccanherald.com/brandspot/pr-spot/paradise-skin-tag-remover-scam-alart-paradise-skin-tag-remover-shark-tank-2023-reports-exposed-1193150.html
Pinterest: -https://www.pinterest.com/paradiseskintagsremove
Tumblr: -https://www.tumblr.com/paradiseskintagsremover
Twitter: -https://twitter.com/Paradisetag
https://www.quora.com/profile/Paradise-Skin-Tag-Remover-10/What-Is-Paradise-Skin-Tag-Remover-Paradise-Skin-Tag-Remover-https-www-outlookindia-com-outlook-spotlight-paradise
2023.03.25 06:30 Specialist-Warthog-4 Some arguments against marxism from the new book Anti-Marx from the economist Juan Ramon Rallo
Last year Juan Ramón Rallo published a book called Anti-Marx in which he tries to systematically dismantle the Marxist ideology as a whole, the book has about 1800 pages so it's an incredibly long and rigorous book. I will present 4 arguments he used against marxism in his book (these extracts are translated from Spanish).
1 - Wealth is not only created by producing goods, but by producing relatively more useful goods for those who value them relatively more.
For Marx, value is a phenomenon of a market economy (and therefore a capitalist economy) in which human beings produce separately for the market. In the market, each human being produces goods anarchically with respect to others but needs to coordinate with them, which is achieved by establishing equivalences between the productive contribution of each independent human being. This social comparison of productive contributions in the market is value, namely, the social labor time necessary to manufacture each type of commodity.
On the one hand, the dialectic between the value of a commodity and its market price determines whether we should socially increase or reduce the production of that commodity. On the other hand, the value created by each worker establishes their budget constraint: the more value they have contributed to society in the form of goods, the more value they can obtain from society in the form of goods.
In this sense, a society will be materially richer the more economic goods (use values) it possesses, although in a capitalist society all (or almost all) of these use values will be presented to us as a mass of values: commodities that require a certain amount of social labor to be created and that are distributed according to the social labor they represent. For this reason, if labor productivity increases, the same mass of value can represent a greater mass of use values. For example, if last year we were able to produce 1,000 cars with 100,000 hours of social labor but this year we can produce 2,000 cars with the same 100,000 hours of social labor, the material wealth of society has increased even though the value has remained constant.
However, this last point is only true when there are changes in labor productivity. If labor productivity remains constant, the mass of social value can serve as a proxy, or should serve as a proxy, for the material wealth of a society. That is, material wealth can only be increased by increasing value (we can only become richer by working more hours to produce more goods). However, this last proposition is doubly mistaken.
First, a society can become richer by allocating the same amount of social labor (creating the same added value) to produce goods that are more useful than those that were previously produced. If in 100,000 hours of social labor we can produce either good a or good b, and good a is more useful to us than good b (although both are useful), we will become richer by ceasing to produce good b and producing good a instead. The economic problem that a society must solve is not only to allocate social labor to produce objects that satisfy human needs, but to satisfy the relatively more important human needs.
Second, a society can become richer not only through the production of goods but also through their better distribution. If individual A owns use value a and individual B owns use value b, and A values b more than a and B values a more than b, exchanging those use values (without increasing the amount of values or values in society) will make that society richer. Again, the reason why that society will be richer is that the same use values, but distributed differently, will allow for the satisfaction of more important human needs. For example, a film enthusiast can enjoy novels and a novel enthusiast can enjoy films, but both will achieve higher ends (in their scale of preferences) if the film enthusiast gives up novels to watch movies and the novel enthusiast gives up movies to read novels.
Since Marx did not incorporate the concept of "marginality" into his analysis of use value (there are more or less important use values), he also did not take into consideration that the social production of use values consists not only of transforming nature through human labor in order to manufacture use values, but also of transforming nature through sufficiently coordinated social labor to produce relatively more important use values and distribute them to those producers who value them relatively more.
2 - The only factor of social production is not just human labor, but also time, risk, and entrepreneurial knowledge.
For Marx, there are only two factors of production: nature and labor. Every production process can be developed through combinations of both. All other factors of production (such as a machine) are nothing more than the result of nature transformed by labor. However, there are actually three other factors.
First, time. It is not possible to produce without time. There is no production process that does not take place in time. From the moment we start producing until we finish producing, a period of time necessarily elapses. In that sense, we can only work during a period of time if we are willing to wait until that period of time is over to enjoy the product of our work. For example, if we need to work for five years to produce a car and we are not willing to wait five years to enjoy a car, we cannot produce the car.
Second, risk. It is not possible to produce without assuming risk. There is no production process that does not involve risks (the probability that the result of that production process is not the desired one). No production process is purely deterministic, but rather any process is subject to random conditions that generate uncertainty about what its final result will be (at least, random conditions with respect to the information available to the worker). In that sense, we can only work if we are willing to assume the uncertainty of a production process. For example, if producing a car involves exposing ourselves to the risk of failing in its production and, therefore, losing all the time dedicated to its production, we cannot produce the car if we are not willing to assume such risks.
And third, entrepreneurial information. It is not possible to produce without information: information related to what, how, and for whom to produce (entrepreneurial information). What distinguishes humans from animals, for Marx, is precisely that humans direct their productive action towards a deliberately chosen purpose: that is, there is a rationality behind their work. We know what we want to produce, how we have to produce it, and for whom we have to produce it. Without this entrepreneurial information, human labor would be a mere waste of energy. All of which is particularly relevant in a market economy, where we do not produce for ourselves in an isolated environment, but we produce for others (for the market) competing with others who may have better information about what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it. For example, if we lack information on how to manufacture a car, we cannot produce it; but in the market, if we lack the best information on how to produce a car, we will also be unable to produce it since others will produce it.
To some extent, we could think that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information are features specific to human labor. And they are: time, risk, and information can only be expressed productively through human labor. But it is important to realize that, even when they are expressed productively through human labor, they are dissociable from human labor: that is, the human being who, within a certain production process, takes charge of waiting, assumes risks, or provides entrepreneurial information does not have to be the same human being who works producing use values through the time, risk, and entrepreneurial information provided by other human beings. That is why we can characterize them as independent or separable factors of production from human labor. Marx, however, trapped by the labor theory of value, could not contemplate other factors of social production different from labor itself.
3 - Capitalists and wage earners are not antagonistic economic classes.
For Marx, wage labor and capital are antagonistic economic categories. Capital is non-labor and labor is non-capital. Each one affirms itself by negating the other. Capital cannot exist (socially) without exploiting wage earners, and wage earners cannot exist (socially) without being exploited by capitalists. Such a contradictory conception of capital and wage labor derives from Marx's conception of value: if wealth is only created socially through labor and capitalists do not work (at least in their pure form, leaving aside capitalists who exercise managerial functions within a company), then capitalists can only enrich themselves by impoverishing workers, that is, by appropriating the wealth that only workers have created (exploitation).
From this perspective, the emancipation of wage earners requires the social annihilation of capital: that is, socializing the ownership of the means of production so that all the wealth created solely by social labor remains in the hands of all workers. The worker does not benefit in any way from the existence of the capitalist and, therefore, can only enter into an objectively contradictory relationship with him.
The reality, however, is that the capitalist does contribute to the social creation of wealth: the capitalist is the person who specializes in socially providing time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to a production process, thereby expanding the productive capacities of those workers who would not (or could not) provide that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to different production processes on their own and who, therefore, could not produce certain use values. Abolishing the social function of the capitalist is equivalent to imposing forced socialization of savings, forced socialization of risks, and forced socialization of the process of creating entrepreneurial information. It makes it impossible, therefore, for there to be transfers of time, risk, and information between human beings: that a wage earner can cooperatively associate with a capitalist so that the latter absorbs all the waiting, all the risk, and all the creation of information that the former cannot or does not want to take on, and that precisely because the capitalist absorbs them, the former can dedicate themselves to working in a way that they could not work without their association with the capitalist.
By refusing to recognize the wealth-generating functions of the capitalist (as a social role, not as a natural category), Marx only saw social antagonism of interests between wage earners and capitalists, when productive alliances based on the harmony of interests can also exist between them. This does not mean that conflicts of interests cannot also arise between the parties in any cooperative relationship of any kind: a marriage can be a life project that both spouses consider to be mutually beneficial, but that does not prevent conflicts from emerging within the marriage that can sometimes even lead to its dissolution.
Therefore, the class struggle between capitalists and wage earners is not a necessary byproduct of the historical evolution of human societies with a certain degree of material development (in dialectical contradiction to their form of social organization), but a byproduct of the inoculation of certain mistaken ideas that, by altering the social worldview of individuals inserted in certain productive relations, poison those individuals and promote social war instead of active, mutually beneficial and good faith cooperation.
4 - It is rational to subordinate the production of use values to the market.
According to Marx, the alienation of labor in the market implies our subordination to collective irrationality: the market dictates what we should produce socially, how we should produce it socially, and for whom we should produce it socially, without anyone controlling the market and, therefore, without anyone being able to inject rationality and coherence into the entire process of production and social distribution blindly directed by the market. And given that the difference between humans and animals lies in the rationality that humans inject into their work, capitalism, by depriving our social work of rationality (of conscious collective control), would be dehumanizing us, turning us into mere automatons without will in the service of the social force of capital. Within the market, what is produced is not what is useful to us as human beings, but only what is useful to capital for revalorization: capital devours us, engulfs us, and vampirizes us.
In reality, however, a society composed of individuals with heterogeneous preferences and very fragmented information about the preferences of the rest of individuals and about potentially available technological options, can aspire to no more than discovering what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it through decentralized experimentation by different coalitions of individuals on different proposals of social wealth and through the competitive appearance of these different proposals of social wealth before an impersonal arbitrator like the market. If there are different social opinions about what should be produced, how it should be produced, and for whom it should be produced, the way to discover which of all these diverse opinions brings us closer to making relatively more useful goods for those producers who value them relatively more is by allowing the formation of human teams (composed to varying degrees of capital and labor) and having these teams (companies) compete with each other based on how much they can expect, how much risk they want to assume, and how much good information they have regarding the creation of wealth for third parties.
From that perspective, submitting to the market to socially discover what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it is not irrational: it is using the best social algorithm we know to maximize our wealth. It is precisely that no one controls that social algorithm in isolation that enables a truly unbiased competition among the various options for creating wealth: the market acts as a blind watchmaker in the social evolution of wealth. We subordinate use values to values to maximize the quantitative and qualitative creation of use values. The irrational thing would be precisely the opposite: to repudiate the market and pretend to replace it with mechanisms for coordinating social production that, ignoring the limits of human reason, lead us to make worse productive and distributive decisions than we could dynamically make through the market. It is not that the market provides perfect solutions to the problems of social coordination in the generation of wealth: it is only less imperfect than the rest of forms of social organization.
submitted by Specialist-Warthog-4 to CapitalismVSocialism [link] [comments]
1 - Wealth is not only created by producing goods, but by producing relatively more useful goods for those who value them relatively more.
For Marx, value is a phenomenon of a market economy (and therefore a capitalist economy) in which human beings produce separately for the market. In the market, each human being produces goods anarchically with respect to others but needs to coordinate with them, which is achieved by establishing equivalences between the productive contribution of each independent human being. This social comparison of productive contributions in the market is value, namely, the social labor time necessary to manufacture each type of commodity.
On the one hand, the dialectic between the value of a commodity and its market price determines whether we should socially increase or reduce the production of that commodity. On the other hand, the value created by each worker establishes their budget constraint: the more value they have contributed to society in the form of goods, the more value they can obtain from society in the form of goods.
In this sense, a society will be materially richer the more economic goods (use values) it possesses, although in a capitalist society all (or almost all) of these use values will be presented to us as a mass of values: commodities that require a certain amount of social labor to be created and that are distributed according to the social labor they represent. For this reason, if labor productivity increases, the same mass of value can represent a greater mass of use values. For example, if last year we were able to produce 1,000 cars with 100,000 hours of social labor but this year we can produce 2,000 cars with the same 100,000 hours of social labor, the material wealth of society has increased even though the value has remained constant.
However, this last point is only true when there are changes in labor productivity. If labor productivity remains constant, the mass of social value can serve as a proxy, or should serve as a proxy, for the material wealth of a society. That is, material wealth can only be increased by increasing value (we can only become richer by working more hours to produce more goods). However, this last proposition is doubly mistaken.
First, a society can become richer by allocating the same amount of social labor (creating the same added value) to produce goods that are more useful than those that were previously produced. If in 100,000 hours of social labor we can produce either good a or good b, and good a is more useful to us than good b (although both are useful), we will become richer by ceasing to produce good b and producing good a instead. The economic problem that a society must solve is not only to allocate social labor to produce objects that satisfy human needs, but to satisfy the relatively more important human needs.
Second, a society can become richer not only through the production of goods but also through their better distribution. If individual A owns use value a and individual B owns use value b, and A values b more than a and B values a more than b, exchanging those use values (without increasing the amount of values or values in society) will make that society richer. Again, the reason why that society will be richer is that the same use values, but distributed differently, will allow for the satisfaction of more important human needs. For example, a film enthusiast can enjoy novels and a novel enthusiast can enjoy films, but both will achieve higher ends (in their scale of preferences) if the film enthusiast gives up novels to watch movies and the novel enthusiast gives up movies to read novels.
Since Marx did not incorporate the concept of "marginality" into his analysis of use value (there are more or less important use values), he also did not take into consideration that the social production of use values consists not only of transforming nature through human labor in order to manufacture use values, but also of transforming nature through sufficiently coordinated social labor to produce relatively more important use values and distribute them to those producers who value them relatively more.
2 - The only factor of social production is not just human labor, but also time, risk, and entrepreneurial knowledge.
For Marx, there are only two factors of production: nature and labor. Every production process can be developed through combinations of both. All other factors of production (such as a machine) are nothing more than the result of nature transformed by labor. However, there are actually three other factors.
First, time. It is not possible to produce without time. There is no production process that does not take place in time. From the moment we start producing until we finish producing, a period of time necessarily elapses. In that sense, we can only work during a period of time if we are willing to wait until that period of time is over to enjoy the product of our work. For example, if we need to work for five years to produce a car and we are not willing to wait five years to enjoy a car, we cannot produce the car.
Second, risk. It is not possible to produce without assuming risk. There is no production process that does not involve risks (the probability that the result of that production process is not the desired one). No production process is purely deterministic, but rather any process is subject to random conditions that generate uncertainty about what its final result will be (at least, random conditions with respect to the information available to the worker). In that sense, we can only work if we are willing to assume the uncertainty of a production process. For example, if producing a car involves exposing ourselves to the risk of failing in its production and, therefore, losing all the time dedicated to its production, we cannot produce the car if we are not willing to assume such risks.
And third, entrepreneurial information. It is not possible to produce without information: information related to what, how, and for whom to produce (entrepreneurial information). What distinguishes humans from animals, for Marx, is precisely that humans direct their productive action towards a deliberately chosen purpose: that is, there is a rationality behind their work. We know what we want to produce, how we have to produce it, and for whom we have to produce it. Without this entrepreneurial information, human labor would be a mere waste of energy. All of which is particularly relevant in a market economy, where we do not produce for ourselves in an isolated environment, but we produce for others (for the market) competing with others who may have better information about what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it. For example, if we lack information on how to manufacture a car, we cannot produce it; but in the market, if we lack the best information on how to produce a car, we will also be unable to produce it since others will produce it.
To some extent, we could think that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information are features specific to human labor. And they are: time, risk, and information can only be expressed productively through human labor. But it is important to realize that, even when they are expressed productively through human labor, they are dissociable from human labor: that is, the human being who, within a certain production process, takes charge of waiting, assumes risks, or provides entrepreneurial information does not have to be the same human being who works producing use values through the time, risk, and entrepreneurial information provided by other human beings. That is why we can characterize them as independent or separable factors of production from human labor. Marx, however, trapped by the labor theory of value, could not contemplate other factors of social production different from labor itself.
3 - Capitalists and wage earners are not antagonistic economic classes.
For Marx, wage labor and capital are antagonistic economic categories. Capital is non-labor and labor is non-capital. Each one affirms itself by negating the other. Capital cannot exist (socially) without exploiting wage earners, and wage earners cannot exist (socially) without being exploited by capitalists. Such a contradictory conception of capital and wage labor derives from Marx's conception of value: if wealth is only created socially through labor and capitalists do not work (at least in their pure form, leaving aside capitalists who exercise managerial functions within a company), then capitalists can only enrich themselves by impoverishing workers, that is, by appropriating the wealth that only workers have created (exploitation).
From this perspective, the emancipation of wage earners requires the social annihilation of capital: that is, socializing the ownership of the means of production so that all the wealth created solely by social labor remains in the hands of all workers. The worker does not benefit in any way from the existence of the capitalist and, therefore, can only enter into an objectively contradictory relationship with him.
The reality, however, is that the capitalist does contribute to the social creation of wealth: the capitalist is the person who specializes in socially providing time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to a production process, thereby expanding the productive capacities of those workers who would not (or could not) provide that time, risk, and entrepreneurial information to different production processes on their own and who, therefore, could not produce certain use values. Abolishing the social function of the capitalist is equivalent to imposing forced socialization of savings, forced socialization of risks, and forced socialization of the process of creating entrepreneurial information. It makes it impossible, therefore, for there to be transfers of time, risk, and information between human beings: that a wage earner can cooperatively associate with a capitalist so that the latter absorbs all the waiting, all the risk, and all the creation of information that the former cannot or does not want to take on, and that precisely because the capitalist absorbs them, the former can dedicate themselves to working in a way that they could not work without their association with the capitalist.
By refusing to recognize the wealth-generating functions of the capitalist (as a social role, not as a natural category), Marx only saw social antagonism of interests between wage earners and capitalists, when productive alliances based on the harmony of interests can also exist between them. This does not mean that conflicts of interests cannot also arise between the parties in any cooperative relationship of any kind: a marriage can be a life project that both spouses consider to be mutually beneficial, but that does not prevent conflicts from emerging within the marriage that can sometimes even lead to its dissolution.
Therefore, the class struggle between capitalists and wage earners is not a necessary byproduct of the historical evolution of human societies with a certain degree of material development (in dialectical contradiction to their form of social organization), but a byproduct of the inoculation of certain mistaken ideas that, by altering the social worldview of individuals inserted in certain productive relations, poison those individuals and promote social war instead of active, mutually beneficial and good faith cooperation.
4 - It is rational to subordinate the production of use values to the market.
According to Marx, the alienation of labor in the market implies our subordination to collective irrationality: the market dictates what we should produce socially, how we should produce it socially, and for whom we should produce it socially, without anyone controlling the market and, therefore, without anyone being able to inject rationality and coherence into the entire process of production and social distribution blindly directed by the market. And given that the difference between humans and animals lies in the rationality that humans inject into their work, capitalism, by depriving our social work of rationality (of conscious collective control), would be dehumanizing us, turning us into mere automatons without will in the service of the social force of capital. Within the market, what is produced is not what is useful to us as human beings, but only what is useful to capital for revalorization: capital devours us, engulfs us, and vampirizes us.
In reality, however, a society composed of individuals with heterogeneous preferences and very fragmented information about the preferences of the rest of individuals and about potentially available technological options, can aspire to no more than discovering what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it through decentralized experimentation by different coalitions of individuals on different proposals of social wealth and through the competitive appearance of these different proposals of social wealth before an impersonal arbitrator like the market. If there are different social opinions about what should be produced, how it should be produced, and for whom it should be produced, the way to discover which of all these diverse opinions brings us closer to making relatively more useful goods for those producers who value them relatively more is by allowing the formation of human teams (composed to varying degrees of capital and labor) and having these teams (companies) compete with each other based on how much they can expect, how much risk they want to assume, and how much good information they have regarding the creation of wealth for third parties.
From that perspective, submitting to the market to socially discover what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom to produce it is not irrational: it is using the best social algorithm we know to maximize our wealth. It is precisely that no one controls that social algorithm in isolation that enables a truly unbiased competition among the various options for creating wealth: the market acts as a blind watchmaker in the social evolution of wealth. We subordinate use values to values to maximize the quantitative and qualitative creation of use values. The irrational thing would be precisely the opposite: to repudiate the market and pretend to replace it with mechanisms for coordinating social production that, ignoring the limits of human reason, lead us to make worse productive and distributive decisions than we could dynamically make through the market. It is not that the market provides perfect solutions to the problems of social coordination in the generation of wealth: it is only less imperfect than the rest of forms of social organization.
2023.03.25 06:29 symphonicw Should I break up with him or not?
Should I break up with him or not?
So, I honestly don't know where to post this but glad, I found this sub. I just wanted to let this out, too. We've had a conflict before this when I told him I wanted to break up with him. But anyway before that, here's the story.
We met online in 2021. We became friends but we barely shared our personal information including real names and faces until we finally met in real life in January 2023. We're both in our early 20's.
It happened so fast. He confessed he liked me in our second meeting. Then, we became in a relationship in February.
He's my first boyfriend and I'm his first girlfriend. But I don't think it matters in the story.
To be honest, I already liked him when we were talking online, but it was him who fell harder when we met in real life. It was a pandemic, and I was deprived of attention from the opposite sex, and he was nice and friendly.
Just a few days ago, I told him I wanted to break up with him. He didn't get mad. He was understanding. We just started the relationship and I wanted to end it.
Reason? Probably because I realized I couldn't stay with someone who's not 100% my type and I needed a guy I'm so madly in love with. I love him for who he is but I'm really looking for something that he cannot give to me. I wanted a guy who would casually take candid photos of me, or of us. I wanted a guy who would invite me for a coffee. I wanted a guy who would always ask me for a date even though it's just his idea. I wanted a guy who could make me feel so in love. Although I feel something for him, I really think it's not enough.
He wanted this relationship to last for a long time and I wanted to end it now. I feel so bad. He said we just started so let's see what's gonna happen in the coming days. In the end, I didn't break up with him.
We both knew it happened so fast but we couldn't do anything about it. Yes, I love him but it's just not enough. I already told him that we don't have the same amount of love for each other but he just accepted it.
I don't want to hurt him but I want the best for me. He has accepted me for being who I am (mentally ill and suicidal). Obviously, it's hard to find those guys these days. He has also accepted all my insecurities. It's hard to replace him but I don't want him to change for me. If he can't be a guy who would take photos of me without me knowing, that's fine. I don't want him to change. So I'm accepting that but I still yearn for that kind of attention. Yes, he gives me a lot of attention when we're together but I still feel like I don't love him that much.
I'm so confused about what to do.
submitted by symphonicw to offmychest [link] [comments]
So, I honestly don't know where to post this but glad, I found this sub. I just wanted to let this out, too. We've had a conflict before this when I told him I wanted to break up with him. But anyway before that, here's the story.
We met online in 2021. We became friends but we barely shared our personal information including real names and faces until we finally met in real life in January 2023. We're both in our early 20's.
It happened so fast. He confessed he liked me in our second meeting. Then, we became in a relationship in February.
He's my first boyfriend and I'm his first girlfriend. But I don't think it matters in the story.
To be honest, I already liked him when we were talking online, but it was him who fell harder when we met in real life. It was a pandemic, and I was deprived of attention from the opposite sex, and he was nice and friendly.
Just a few days ago, I told him I wanted to break up with him. He didn't get mad. He was understanding. We just started the relationship and I wanted to end it.
Reason? Probably because I realized I couldn't stay with someone who's not 100% my type and I needed a guy I'm so madly in love with. I love him for who he is but I'm really looking for something that he cannot give to me. I wanted a guy who would casually take candid photos of me, or of us. I wanted a guy who would invite me for a coffee. I wanted a guy who would always ask me for a date even though it's just his idea. I wanted a guy who could make me feel so in love. Although I feel something for him, I really think it's not enough.
He wanted this relationship to last for a long time and I wanted to end it now. I feel so bad. He said we just started so let's see what's gonna happen in the coming days. In the end, I didn't break up with him.
We both knew it happened so fast but we couldn't do anything about it. Yes, I love him but it's just not enough. I already told him that we don't have the same amount of love for each other but he just accepted it.
I don't want to hurt him but I want the best for me. He has accepted me for being who I am (mentally ill and suicidal). Obviously, it's hard to find those guys these days. He has also accepted all my insecurities. It's hard to replace him but I don't want him to change for me. If he can't be a guy who would take photos of me without me knowing, that's fine. I don't want him to change. So I'm accepting that but I still yearn for that kind of attention. Yes, he gives me a lot of attention when we're together but I still feel like I don't love him that much.
I'm so confused about what to do.
2023.03.25 06:29 ThunderNegro420 Who wants to play a fiction writing game of mosh pit?
Band the Band is playing but the audience is just standing there. A few heads are popping up here and there, looking around, hoping to seen any sign of a mosh pit moving. Finally I decide to charge diagonally...
Your turn.
submitted by ThunderNegro420 to DillingerEscapePlan [link] [comments]
Your turn.
2023.03.25 06:29 Str4tix YB rocking with Ja Morant ok then
 | submitted by Str4tix to NBAYoungboy [link] [comments] |
2023.03.25 06:29 TheFallenGodYT First time playing through.
So, this is my first time playing through DS1. I’ve played and beaten Bloodborne twice, but it’s the only soulsborne I’ve played. My brother 100% Elden Ring, and said “I couldn’t beat a fromsoft game” so I beat Bloodborne again (my old ps4 is long gone, so I beat it on the ps5 me and him bought together)
Let me preface this, I haven’t completely finished the game yet. I just beat the four kings, and still need to beat Seath, Gravelord Nito, and Bed of chaos.
I’ve enjoyed my playthrough so far and I will update some more. But I have something things to share and want to touch on a few things.
I have played through BB twice, but I don’t remember how many tries it took me for each boss when I beat it as a kid. But my recent playthrough, I first tried every boss excluding Gascoigne (third try) and Gehrman (fifth try).
As for dark souls, I beat every boss first try, except, the obvious bastards of the group.
Ornstein and Smough took me 52 tries.
I struggled with them a lot. I don’t summon and had a +8 demon’s great hammer (which I used until I got my current weapon) and it was near impossible. I finally beat them after cheating if I’m honest. I did the trick where you bare hand parry the knight outside the boss wall. I was level 50 something iirc.
After beating them however, I found out about several exploits which I’m now using.
Firstly, I’ve been duplicating souls like mad. I’m now level 205 and have a +5 black knight’s greatsword.
This is my current statblock
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1014738437565329471/1089056671285915679/37cc7e7e-236f-4d21-a856-55648e25d4d5.png
Do not lecture me in the comments about soft and hard caps, I know how they work. I got the 99 strength for the meme.
This is of course outsider looking in type thoughts, but I feel as if I’ve reached the point in the game where there isn’t going to be much challenge left. This is of course self inflicted, but I don’t feel like it’s a bad thing.
The only boss I’m worried about is Manus, who I’ve heard can be harder than Pikachu and Snorlax. But just from watching videos of him, it seems like I may be able to just genuinely out-trade him in damage.
I don’t mind it being really easy though honestly. I will say, I think Bloodborne is overall a better game, but through what I’ve played, I think dark souls is a masterpiece of it’s own.
So, have I “ruined” my first experience of the game? Am I underestimating some bosses? Let me know what you think.
submitted by TheFallenGodYT to darksouls [link] [comments]
Let me preface this, I haven’t completely finished the game yet. I just beat the four kings, and still need to beat Seath, Gravelord Nito, and Bed of chaos.
I’ve enjoyed my playthrough so far and I will update some more. But I have something things to share and want to touch on a few things.
I have played through BB twice, but I don’t remember how many tries it took me for each boss when I beat it as a kid. But my recent playthrough, I first tried every boss excluding Gascoigne (third try) and Gehrman (fifth try).
As for dark souls, I beat every boss first try, except, the obvious bastards of the group.
Ornstein and Smough took me 52 tries.
I struggled with them a lot. I don’t summon and had a +8 demon’s great hammer (which I used until I got my current weapon) and it was near impossible. I finally beat them after cheating if I’m honest. I did the trick where you bare hand parry the knight outside the boss wall. I was level 50 something iirc.
After beating them however, I found out about several exploits which I’m now using.
Firstly, I’ve been duplicating souls like mad. I’m now level 205 and have a +5 black knight’s greatsword.
This is my current statblock
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1014738437565329471/1089056671285915679/37cc7e7e-236f-4d21-a856-55648e25d4d5.png
Do not lecture me in the comments about soft and hard caps, I know how they work. I got the 99 strength for the meme.
This is of course outsider looking in type thoughts, but I feel as if I’ve reached the point in the game where there isn’t going to be much challenge left. This is of course self inflicted, but I don’t feel like it’s a bad thing.
The only boss I’m worried about is Manus, who I’ve heard can be harder than Pikachu and Snorlax. But just from watching videos of him, it seems like I may be able to just genuinely out-trade him in damage.
I don’t mind it being really easy though honestly. I will say, I think Bloodborne is overall a better game, but through what I’ve played, I think dark souls is a masterpiece of it’s own.
So, have I “ruined” my first experience of the game? Am I underestimating some bosses? Let me know what you think.
2023.03.25 06:29 Puzzleheaded_Nail556 50/50 tip split between BOH and FOH
It’s a tip pool split between FOH and BOH.
The justification for the split is: A) BOH have historically been severely underpaid B) Food is a huge part of the servers cheques i.e. if they didn’t make food for the servers their tips wouldn’t be as high C) Dishwashing duties are split b/t FOH and BOH during service; BOH will sometimes participate in FOH duties (greeting customers or sometimes they’ll talk to or deliver food to people seated at the bar)
For context, it’s a small restaurant (35 seats) with an open kitchen that’s attached to the bar. Average tips are $100 per night, with a threshold of $200 even for for very, very busy nights. Finally, the BOH gets a higher hourly wage than servers.
What do you think of that? 🥹
submitted by Puzzleheaded_Nail556 to TalesFromYourServer [link] [comments]
The justification for the split is: A) BOH have historically been severely underpaid B) Food is a huge part of the servers cheques i.e. if they didn’t make food for the servers their tips wouldn’t be as high C) Dishwashing duties are split b/t FOH and BOH during service; BOH will sometimes participate in FOH duties (greeting customers or sometimes they’ll talk to or deliver food to people seated at the bar)
For context, it’s a small restaurant (35 seats) with an open kitchen that’s attached to the bar. Average tips are $100 per night, with a threshold of $200 even for for very, very busy nights. Finally, the BOH gets a higher hourly wage than servers.
What do you think of that? 🥹
2023.03.25 06:29 Theeaglestrikes If your dog cries at the sound of whistling coming from the basement, don’t go down there.
Jesse is a good boy. When he was a pup, my wife and I were flabbergasted at his mild disposition. Uncle Dan, who gifted the dog from his litter of German Shepherds, proudly proclaimed the puppy was ‘a sturdy sort’.
To me, however, Jesse always looked frightened beneath the surface. His steely resolve didn’t fool me. If he hadn’t been a newborn puppy, I would’ve worried that he had suffered abuse from previous owners.
As it would transpire, Jesse was enduring a very different kind of trauma.
“What’s the racket, boy?”
That was the question I asked yesterday morning at three o’clock. Susie had nudged me awake to see why Jesse was crying downstairs. My shivering German Shepherd was standing in front of the door to the basement, but that wasn’t even the darnedest thing.
Jesse was pointing his paw at the door.
“You don’t want to go down there, boy,” I said. “Are you after a midnight snack? Come on. You’re smart. You know where I keep the-”
A shrill ringing noise erupted from the basement. It sounded like a man’s dissonant whistling at first — a sinister song — but it eventually settled on one excruciating, continuous note. Jesse whimpered, and the noise gradually quietened. Then I realised it had simply ascended to a pitch that I couldn’t hear. But the dog clearly heard something — his paw fell to the floor, and he fidgeted from side to side, whining painfully.
“Okay… Not sure what’s making that sound,” I gulped. “Give me a second to fetch the flashlight, Jesse.”
The basement light doesn’t work, and I wasn’t going to stumble around in the dark. As I was rummaging through kitchen drawers for the torch, I heard the basement door open of its own accord — there was no way the dog had opened it, of course.
“Jesse?” I called.
Finally holding the flashlight in my hand, I darted into the hallway and stared down the blackened staircase into the basement. I could hear Jesse’s paws softly plodding against the ground, but his sobbing had ceased.
Mustering every ounce of courage, I shone the torch light down the stairs, illuminating the sinisterly still basement. Every wooden step moaned beneath my weight, threatening to give way, but the rotting stairs held. I finally found myself in the cluttered, chaotic basement area.
“Jesse?” I called.
A weak woof sounded from the far corner of the room, so I weaved between boxes and shelves to uncover what had enthralled Jesse. As I would soon learn, fear had motivated him — not eager curiosity.
Rounding the mound of basement clutter, I cast my light onto the far side of the room, and there was my dog. He was standing perfectly still, soundlessly staring at something in the corner. Something that my eyes did not, or could not, immediately process.
A dark, towering shape — so large that it had to hunch forwards to fit into the room. Its spindly limbs stretched across the walls and ceiling. At first, I thought it to be an emaciated and obscenely-tall man, but then it started to look more like a horrifyingly humongous insect. Finally, I decided it wasn’t any earthly thing. All I knew for sure was that it terrified me.
Its lips moved, speaking to Jesse in a frequency only he could hear, but the monstrous thing stopped talking when it noticed my flash light. White, marble, pupil-less eyes, sitting in the midst of a darkened face, surveyed me. Then its lips opened again, and though I could not hear a sound, my eardrums swelled until I thought they might burst.
I screamed in agony, dropping the flashlight to clutch my ears. The basement window smashed, and my torch rolled across the floor, briefly illuminating the insect-like entity as it inexplicably seeped into the brickwork of my house. It slithered between cracks in a way that no living animal could.
Jesse howled in terror, and I ran over to him, scooping up my torch on the way.
“Come on,” I cried. “Upstairs, boy. Now.”
When we reached the lobby, I slammed the basement door shut and locked it. Susie was racing down the stairs, and she sprinted over to us with a concerned look on her face.
“What was all of that noise?” She asked.
“It’s fine,” I lied, shaking uncontrollably. “I… Jesse gave me a scare. That’s all.”
I didn’t sleep that night. I begged Susie to allow Jesse to sleep in our room. I told her that he’d seen a wild animal in the basement and seemed shaken up about it. A half-truth always seems more morally justifiable than an outright lie.
Today, I was barely responsive at work. I kept replaying that horrible night in my head. What had I seen? What did it want from my dog? So many unknowns. I truly wish I were telling the truth to Susie. I wish it had just been a rodent. But the way its spidery form had slinked into the wall defied all physical explanation.
And yesterday night was only the beginning.
During the foggy hours of this evening, I walked home through the local park. Within the white mist that shrouded the path and pedestrians, I caught glimpses of spindly shapes, flitting from tree to tree. Just your imagination, I told myself, trembling in fear.
Then I started to notice unnerving behaviour from passers-by. To be more precise, their dogs unnerved me. A cocker-spaniel whined, giving me a wide berth as it passed. Then a whippet whimpered, hurriedly dragging its owner past me. Three or four other dogs reacted in the same way, casting fearful looks in my direction as they passed.
And all the while, I kept briefly catching glimpses of insect limbs in the fog — scurrying out of sight before I could fully set my eyes upon them. My breathing became laboured as true terror gripped me, and I started to quicken my pace. People cast perplexed looks in my direction — the frenetic man who was frightening their dogs.
When I finally reached my street, I wasn’t sure whether to feel relieved or terrified. A house is a place that should make a person feel safe, but when I pictured my home, I could only see the basement — that horrendous thing in the basement. And it seemed there was no escaping it in the outside world either.
I reassured myself that all I had to do was ignore it. Keep the basement door locked, keep Jesse away from it, and all should be well. I repeated that over and over in my mind, too distracted to absorb my surroundings. And, with my guard down, that’s when it struck.
I felt something tugging at the bottom of my jeans. When I looked down, the colour drained from my skin — a black limb was coiling around my ankle, planting me to the ground. I screamed, looking around, but the foggy street was deserted.
And when my eyes followed the elongated limb, I saw that it led to a pothole in the middle of the road. The pothole that we’ve long encouraged the council to fix — the pothole that had transformed into a ceaseless void of blackness. I fell to the tarmac, desperately shrieking for help and clawing at the black limb that dragged me across the road.
I tried to imagine what lay at the bottom of that pit — did it even have a bottom? Whatever unholy hovel the demonic creature had created, I knew it would be a place beyond conceivable horror. I closed my eyes, preparing for the unfathomable terror of whatever fate I would meet in that hole.
A growl made my eyes shoot open, and I saw Jesse in the road. Thank the Lord for the dog flap that Susie insisted on installing in our back door.
Our fearsome Shepherd plunged its killer teeth into the entity’s black limb, and the demon unleashed a shrill scream of agony — one that I could hear, for a brief moment, before it reached a frequency beyond human hearing.
Jesse whimpered, deafened by the inaudible noise, but his ferocious attack saved my life. The black limb uncoiled itself from my ankle, retreating into its lair — the tarmac closed over the horrifying void, turning it back into an ordinary pothole.
I embraced Jesse and cried, rushing out of the fog to the safety of our home.
But is it safe? Jesse gave that thing a scare. I’m just worried that it’ll be back.
What was the insect man saying to my dog in the basement? That unanswered question scares me. It was talking to Jesse. I’m sure of it. Has it always spoken to him? I don’t know what it wants from him — from us.
X
submitted by Theeaglestrikes to nosleep [link] [comments]
To me, however, Jesse always looked frightened beneath the surface. His steely resolve didn’t fool me. If he hadn’t been a newborn puppy, I would’ve worried that he had suffered abuse from previous owners.
As it would transpire, Jesse was enduring a very different kind of trauma.
“What’s the racket, boy?”
That was the question I asked yesterday morning at three o’clock. Susie had nudged me awake to see why Jesse was crying downstairs. My shivering German Shepherd was standing in front of the door to the basement, but that wasn’t even the darnedest thing.
Jesse was pointing his paw at the door.
“You don’t want to go down there, boy,” I said. “Are you after a midnight snack? Come on. You’re smart. You know where I keep the-”
A shrill ringing noise erupted from the basement. It sounded like a man’s dissonant whistling at first — a sinister song — but it eventually settled on one excruciating, continuous note. Jesse whimpered, and the noise gradually quietened. Then I realised it had simply ascended to a pitch that I couldn’t hear. But the dog clearly heard something — his paw fell to the floor, and he fidgeted from side to side, whining painfully.
“Okay… Not sure what’s making that sound,” I gulped. “Give me a second to fetch the flashlight, Jesse.”
The basement light doesn’t work, and I wasn’t going to stumble around in the dark. As I was rummaging through kitchen drawers for the torch, I heard the basement door open of its own accord — there was no way the dog had opened it, of course.
“Jesse?” I called.
Finally holding the flashlight in my hand, I darted into the hallway and stared down the blackened staircase into the basement. I could hear Jesse’s paws softly plodding against the ground, but his sobbing had ceased.
Mustering every ounce of courage, I shone the torch light down the stairs, illuminating the sinisterly still basement. Every wooden step moaned beneath my weight, threatening to give way, but the rotting stairs held. I finally found myself in the cluttered, chaotic basement area.
“Jesse?” I called.
A weak woof sounded from the far corner of the room, so I weaved between boxes and shelves to uncover what had enthralled Jesse. As I would soon learn, fear had motivated him — not eager curiosity.
Rounding the mound of basement clutter, I cast my light onto the far side of the room, and there was my dog. He was standing perfectly still, soundlessly staring at something in the corner. Something that my eyes did not, or could not, immediately process.
A dark, towering shape — so large that it had to hunch forwards to fit into the room. Its spindly limbs stretched across the walls and ceiling. At first, I thought it to be an emaciated and obscenely-tall man, but then it started to look more like a horrifyingly humongous insect. Finally, I decided it wasn’t any earthly thing. All I knew for sure was that it terrified me.
Its lips moved, speaking to Jesse in a frequency only he could hear, but the monstrous thing stopped talking when it noticed my flash light. White, marble, pupil-less eyes, sitting in the midst of a darkened face, surveyed me. Then its lips opened again, and though I could not hear a sound, my eardrums swelled until I thought they might burst.
I screamed in agony, dropping the flashlight to clutch my ears. The basement window smashed, and my torch rolled across the floor, briefly illuminating the insect-like entity as it inexplicably seeped into the brickwork of my house. It slithered between cracks in a way that no living animal could.
Jesse howled in terror, and I ran over to him, scooping up my torch on the way.
“Come on,” I cried. “Upstairs, boy. Now.”
When we reached the lobby, I slammed the basement door shut and locked it. Susie was racing down the stairs, and she sprinted over to us with a concerned look on her face.
“What was all of that noise?” She asked.
“It’s fine,” I lied, shaking uncontrollably. “I… Jesse gave me a scare. That’s all.”
I didn’t sleep that night. I begged Susie to allow Jesse to sleep in our room. I told her that he’d seen a wild animal in the basement and seemed shaken up about it. A half-truth always seems more morally justifiable than an outright lie.
Today, I was barely responsive at work. I kept replaying that horrible night in my head. What had I seen? What did it want from my dog? So many unknowns. I truly wish I were telling the truth to Susie. I wish it had just been a rodent. But the way its spidery form had slinked into the wall defied all physical explanation.
And yesterday night was only the beginning.
During the foggy hours of this evening, I walked home through the local park. Within the white mist that shrouded the path and pedestrians, I caught glimpses of spindly shapes, flitting from tree to tree. Just your imagination, I told myself, trembling in fear.
Then I started to notice unnerving behaviour from passers-by. To be more precise, their dogs unnerved me. A cocker-spaniel whined, giving me a wide berth as it passed. Then a whippet whimpered, hurriedly dragging its owner past me. Three or four other dogs reacted in the same way, casting fearful looks in my direction as they passed.
And all the while, I kept briefly catching glimpses of insect limbs in the fog — scurrying out of sight before I could fully set my eyes upon them. My breathing became laboured as true terror gripped me, and I started to quicken my pace. People cast perplexed looks in my direction — the frenetic man who was frightening their dogs.
When I finally reached my street, I wasn’t sure whether to feel relieved or terrified. A house is a place that should make a person feel safe, but when I pictured my home, I could only see the basement — that horrendous thing in the basement. And it seemed there was no escaping it in the outside world either.
I reassured myself that all I had to do was ignore it. Keep the basement door locked, keep Jesse away from it, and all should be well. I repeated that over and over in my mind, too distracted to absorb my surroundings. And, with my guard down, that’s when it struck.
I felt something tugging at the bottom of my jeans. When I looked down, the colour drained from my skin — a black limb was coiling around my ankle, planting me to the ground. I screamed, looking around, but the foggy street was deserted.
And when my eyes followed the elongated limb, I saw that it led to a pothole in the middle of the road. The pothole that we’ve long encouraged the council to fix — the pothole that had transformed into a ceaseless void of blackness. I fell to the tarmac, desperately shrieking for help and clawing at the black limb that dragged me across the road.
I tried to imagine what lay at the bottom of that pit — did it even have a bottom? Whatever unholy hovel the demonic creature had created, I knew it would be a place beyond conceivable horror. I closed my eyes, preparing for the unfathomable terror of whatever fate I would meet in that hole.
A growl made my eyes shoot open, and I saw Jesse in the road. Thank the Lord for the dog flap that Susie insisted on installing in our back door.
Our fearsome Shepherd plunged its killer teeth into the entity’s black limb, and the demon unleashed a shrill scream of agony — one that I could hear, for a brief moment, before it reached a frequency beyond human hearing.
Jesse whimpered, deafened by the inaudible noise, but his ferocious attack saved my life. The black limb uncoiled itself from my ankle, retreating into its lair — the tarmac closed over the horrifying void, turning it back into an ordinary pothole.
I embraced Jesse and cried, rushing out of the fog to the safety of our home.
But is it safe? Jesse gave that thing a scare. I’m just worried that it’ll be back.
What was the insect man saying to my dog in the basement? That unanswered question scares me. It was talking to Jesse. I’m sure of it. Has it always spoken to him? I don’t know what it wants from him — from us.
X
2023.03.25 06:28 AssignmentItchy2948 I was finally able to get my orchid to bloom.
 | submitted by AssignmentItchy2948 to houseplants [link] [comments] |