True.

I am not a lawyer but as far as I know: it super isn’t. It’s also illegal for compounding pharmacies to make, where I live.

Imagine not having 70,000 followers. Fate worse then death.

You know that dude would be completely useless.

Man, in lots of places the you can’t even get the name brand so at least there’s that.

I have heard, don’t know how true it is, that hospital pharmacies have first shot at the supplies so they’re less affected by stuff like this. For what that’s worth.

It’s funny because a lot of people really like Vyvanse (that is: lisdexamphetamine) better than the alternatives. It was only made because the DEA wanted fewer people to take regular amphetamines and then a bunch of people responded well to it and the DEA went “wait! Not like that!”

Anyway, it’s on generic now. The only reason there’s a shortage is the DEA.

(Before you say “I’m not in the US and we have a shortage, too!” the drug companies killed all their production lines because the DEA basically gave them an excuse to try to force people off Vyvanse and onto meds that were still under patent.)

Incredible video.

You can fly to a developed country and still get treatment cheaper.

Yeah, one of the meds they talk about making is Vyvanse. That’s having a serious national shortage right now due to a combination of the DEA and corporate greed. It’s illegal for compounding pharmacies to make it but there’s no technical reason they couldn’t. Same for lots of this stuff.

It’s not even funding the expensive treatments, it’s not charging a 1000x markup hurting their bottom line. It’d be one thing if it were genuinely expensive medicine (i would still propose a distribution method other than “capitalism”) but it’s not.

If these meds were available for a reasonable price i don’t think we’d be seeing groups like this.

Guillotine all the CEOs and venture capitals.

I mean it’s still not an edge case. It’s just not.

Like, insert that “That’s not how this works, that isn’t how any of this works” meme here.

Twitter (aka X) probably has a different set of investors who may be happier using it to advance the cause of right wing extremism than the Starlink investors. That said: i thought Starlink was a publicly traded company but it appears it still isn’t so it’s just private investors there, too.

Oh i’m sure he argued with them. Starlink didn’t back down right away, after all…

Nazis are Nazis. Just pretending they’re equivalent with the CCP doesn’t make sense nor make it true.

I’m guessing the Starlink investors had a chat with him about a potential breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit. That’s a stupid concept but Musk isn’t going to win if he deep sixes Starlink for his petty vendetta.

It’s not a slur, is the thing. Not any more than “transgender” is and, in fact, less so.

They know this but they are pretending otherwise, as if Elongated Muskrat were a power mad 1990s forum moderator.

Try typing the word “cisgender” into Twitter.

UhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH???

Yeah i don’t think i need to reply to that one.

I think that’s an ineffective and inaccurate way of looking at things. It’s not reflective of the reality of the situations where we’ve seen anarchist communities rise (and fall). The Ukrainian anarchists all got killed by the Soviet Union, but so did everyone else. They beat the hell out of the monarchists, capitalists, etc in the region and had a good chance at establishing a major anarchist force in the world but ultimately the Soviets betrayed and killed them all. Does the fact that the Soviets killed all the capitalists and monarchists, too, mean their philosophies are utopian? After all, they couldn’t fight off the Soviets in the same way the anarchists couldn’t. They were even less effective at doing so in a lot of ways.

Yeah, the governments of the world do tend to all murder any anarchists they can get their hands on but that’s not an argument in favor of big state governments. That’s not really an argument against anarchism, either. Really, it’s an argument against big state governments. It’s weird to me that it’s held up so much as if it “disproves” anarchism or whatever.

That said, if you want examples of anarchist groups that have managed to survive let’s talk about two:

The first is the Zapatistas. This is a small group in Mexico that has been at war with the United States government and Mexican government for decades now. If the US government wants you dead but can’t kill you, i’d say that’s a pretty good “immune response”. There are not a lot of people who can actively fight the US government and survive and there have been many, many, many other leftist movements in Central and South America that the US government has killed in the forty years since the Zapatistas got their start.

The second one is Rojava, aka more properly: the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). They’re a bit younger, only officially establishing their independence a little over a decade ago, but they’re in some ways in an even more hostile part of the world. They’re a larger organization than the Zapatistas, too. It’s unclear what the future holds for them, but then again that’s ultimately true for all states. We’ll have to wait and see.