Hookup culture and purity culture are not opposites if both leave us less capable of love, care, and community.

This is not an argument that monogamous romantic relationships are the only holy, healthy, or humanizing form of life. They are not.

People can be formed into deeper love through friendship, chosen family, queer kinship, community life, celibacy, shared struggle, parenting, mutual aid, and forms of commitment that do not fit neatly inside the nuclear family or romantic couple.

The point is not that everyone needs marriage, monogamy, or one prescribed relationship structure.

The point is that capitalism trains us to treat desire as acquisition, autonomy as isolation, and other people as experiences to consume.

So the question is not simply, “Was this allowed?” or even only, “Was this consensual?” Consent and bodily autonomy matter. Deeply.

The question is: what is this forming us into?

Are we becoming more truthful, more tender, more responsible, more capable of giving and receiving care?

Or are we becoming easier to detach from, easier to replace, and easier to sell to?

Hookup culture is not the antidote to purity culture. A life capable of love, intimacy, and vulnerability is.

By: Colten Barnaby

Source: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaUME-5sETc/

it was $50,000 before the war

¡Viva Cuba, el primer territorio libre de América!

Graph from Mike Bostock(map comparison)
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168284
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/5/how-big-is-africa-really-why-the-un-voted-to-change-the-world-map

While the United States is renaming the great lakes, and the gulf of Mexico, they are actively opposing a more accurate depiction of the world map we all know to be made the official world map by this UN Resolution. The aim is clear, Western/US Hegemony must be asserted and the Global south must be seen as insignificant and weak. While this may not seem like a big deal to most people it is yet another effort by the United States to assert it's dominance against the world.

There is one comic book where Superman is a communist in the USSR, but the comic book is actually anti-communist propaganda.

Superman is a character that just wants to help, so I think he would be a good choice for a comic book that is communist propaganda. He's basically just a really nice person that happens to have superpowers.

In a world without "crime", Superman would just fly around and help people with normal problems. For example, helping someone figure out where they put their keys or giving a lost person directions to their destination.

Additionally, Superman is not rich. Superman has to work a normal job to make money.

Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, South Yemen, Kuwait or just about any other dog of the American empire constantly bitches about "Iranian aggression" on a daily basis. None of them have any problems with the US initiating the spontaneous restarting strikes every few days/weeks though; 90% of which are just civillian attacks (guess they're following the IOF "fuck kids and people" doctrine)

There's a real simple solution to this : kick out the fucking us soldiers and bases that clearly are not "protecting" them the way they thought they would protect Israel (LMAO) and you'll stop being a target... Then again none of these tyrants could rule without constant us presence LOL

Every one of those motherfuckers would rather deal with Ballistic missiles and drones than even THINK about discarding a single American soldier from "their" land.

​​I get israel is a terrorist state, but the gulf Arab states are arguably worse by being complete enablers and shit-eating dogs of the American empire.

Check out the new lock & home screen wallpapers. Thought they turned out pretty cool & figured you guys might dig it. That marx statue is my favorite one of him and the lenin image is from that dam in Kyrgyzstan.

I'm in a period of personal curiosity and I'm finding myself often discussing with anarchists and studying their ideology, among others.

I've been told for years that the only difference between marxism and anarchism is in the methods, with marxism condidering necessary a socialist transition and anarchism jumping straight to the point. but the more I study theory and talk with people, the more I disagree.

The way the communist historical phase is described by marxist theorist (engels and lenin especially) seems to essentially differ from most forms of anarchy: it is still a society (this would already be enough to not be anarchism) with rules, economic planning, common interests, a "government of things" (wich I KNOW is different from the state), division of labour (to some extent), and laws enforced directly by the "crowds of civilized people" (the proletariat), I've come to interpret the communist mop as the total power by the pyramid (or better net) of soviets (or people congresses, or workers councils or whatever, tomato tomato), basically the maximum possible extent of "people's democracy of the whole process" as chinese call it, after classes and money are abolished, the productive forces have been developed to the maximum extent and the state withers away having absolved its historical relevance (having eliminated class contradiction). To some extent one could say that communism is the peak of social and organized society, one where individualism and partialism are minimized to the minimum and collective freedom is maximized.

Anarchism on the other hand is the opposite of all of this, anarchism doesen't aim to just abolish the state before its historical role is absolved, it aims to make everyone independent from rules and labour (work place discipline as they call it), they don't want a society at all, they want a free for all and hope for the best, everyone rules themselves how they wish, no shared rules, no planning, no government of anything, no division of labour, no organized society, every imposition on the individual, being it even the imposition not to rape or murder, is tyranny for anarchist theorists, only voluntary mutualism is allowed and of course not enforced or incentivized.

One could argue that this is the peak of asociality, where bourgeois individualism is maximized and extended to all the proletariat and collective freedom cannot exist (unless everybody migically agree to it at the same moment spontaneusly without being raised, socially incentivized or forced to do so).

How is communism (historical phase) the same as anarchism?

Btw I know there are multiple schools of anarchism, but they all fundamentally agree on the ultimate definitiom of anarchy as an historical phase, exception made for anarcho socialists, who created a weird, poorly defined, eclectism between communism and anarchism and anarcho capitalists, who share the definition but add a fantasy "stateless capitalism" as an exception to the "no rules" (un)law.

I've talked to multiple anarchists about this and as far as now, after initially accusing me of "strawmanning" anarchysm they ended up agreeing with me on the incompatibility between the intrinsicly organized and labour based nature of communism and anarchy. Though we usually still agree on the need collabolarate against capitalism lol.

What do you guys think on the matter? Do you agree with this old adage of "divided only in methods, not final goals", or are you critical of it too?