That Elusive Utopia
We’ve occasionally dipped a toe in the various trans subreddits, marvelling at the inhabitants and their improbable woes, but other bedlamite communities are available.
For instance, we could linger in the mood room of Reddit’s anarchists.
Where questions abound:
There’s a lot to unpack in there, what with the implications of crime and the assumption of some inexhaustible human kindness, but let’s press on. In the replies, deep and radical knowledge may await:
My partner would go out and dumpster dive, and I would forage and garden, that was our “grocery shopping.” I knew where to find fruit and wild vegetables. It took about a year to learn what was edible in the area.
A year of hit-and-miss. Bodes well for the digestive tract. And yes, the thrill of other people’s bin contents has been mentioned here before.
Not really selling the lifestyle, I fear.
Living free. In other people’s bins.
So not entirely liberated from those capitalist shackles, then.
I’m sure it wasn’t due to any maladjustment.
I truly miss the experience, but I believe it was too much for my ex to handle and it accelerated their mental health issues.
Okay then.
Other enthusiasts offer their hard-won wisdom:
The word is thievery. Lol.
However,
And then there’s this guru of the alternative:
It’s all kindness, kindness, burglary.
But it’s earning a living that’s ugly, you know.
Readers with a taste for dissonance and convolution will find much to chew on.
Update, via the comments:
EmC quotes this,
And adds,
Squatting – theft.
Commercial burglaries – theft.
Retail thefts – theft.
It is worth noting the extent to which this supposedly heroic “rejection of capitalism,” all this awfully pious “life without money,” does seem to depend on freeloading and thieving from others. Specifically, from those who don’t regard earning a living, supporting themselves and their families, as a vice. Some kind of unendurable indignity.
Decide.
“If you live there, it’s yours,” says one participant.
At which point, a psychological profile may become apparent.
Speaking of human kindness, there are tip jar buttons below.
The “reasonable doubt” combined with (supposedly) her not having any previous significant mental illnesses then the introduction of Zoloft and whatever into the mix makes me more favorable to that argument in an analysis of discrete events sense. Though I now see she was on SSRIs in nursing school. Gee, I wonder how common that is? Yet I have a very hard time, even with the drugs involved, understanding how she could do all those things over all that time that it took, the planning, etc., It wasn’t an impulse decision to kill those children.
On the other hand, since covid it has become very clear to me how thick the medical profession is, most especially the nurses, regarding arrogance and Lindsey herself is likely no exception. Were she anything like these jurors we are hearing from, I would attribute that to being the root of her problem. Still, were the death penalty on the table I would have a hard time convicting her. And yet there is no way I want this person walking free. Can a jury consider such a thing? Can they weigh allowing the accused to say, live next door to them, a factor in their decision?
Either way, I think there is way too much confidence (and God it pains me to say this) on both sides of this issue. There are a huge number of dynamics involved here regarding what is and is not acceptable legally, ethical, and morally to reach a decision in such a case. And especially in regards to free will, something our greatest philosophers have debated for centuries with little progress. Which is partly why juries are composed of 12 people.
Of course this whole trial is in the context of Lindsay, the children become just an afterthought.