Jona Lewie - Stop The Cavalry. Apparently not originally intended as a Christmas song anyway.

You say that you found out that lemmy.world had disabled downvotes. Where did you you find that out? I’d certainly seen nothing myself here - I know that some instances have - and can certainly see and use the downvote arrows.

I’m on lemmy.world. This thread is on lemmy.world I have just downvoted you successfully as far as I can see.

The issue with being poor is that you don’t get to save a lot - if any - whilst you are paying for rent and the basics. That is a large part of the reason that the housing co-op that I mentioned has housed so few after so long.

Yes, in the right conditions it will work, but there are a lot of situations that don’t leave people with access to those conditions.

My initial thoughts would be that the priority for most poor people is housing, followed by food and keeping the lights on.

My experience of mutual aid groups is primarily in the form of local exchange trading schemes (LETS), which typically provide services such as cake making, aromatherapy sessions, bicycle repair and maybe garden maintenance etc.

So although you may be able to deal with the food side of things through that to some extent, there really aren’t many landlords who will take rent in the form of aromatherapy and almost no utility suppliers will accept payment in bicycle repairs.

I have known a group to establish a housing co-op, which is great and all, but that, after around a decade, has housed around 8 people in total, which leaves a very long way to go.

Overall, I am in favour of the idea, but it is easy to see the issues that leave most people stuck in some job that actually pays the rent.

I am pleasantly surprised that it got through. However, I think that the devil is in the detail:

Immediately, politicians started voting on more than 100 amendments to make the plan more flexible.

We’ll have to wait and see how much value is left following this teeth-pulling exercise.

The entire cast begins to chant “You can’t dream if you don’t fall asleep” over and over again.

It’s “You can’t wake up if you don’t fall asleep” surely?

And that has a very different meaning.

Personally, I saw the film - and a good deal of the rest of Anderson’s work as a study of the nature of authenticity: the contrast between authentic commitment to the path one has chosen in life (which most of the character demonstrate) and the existentialist authenticity that comes from the realisation that one could make completely different choices at each and every moment - which the compressed, expressionless delivery of most of the lines throws into sharp relief: it becomes so easy to see these characters as being trapped within their chosen roles.

Of course, I am saying “chosen” here, when it seems clear that to Anderson, there is little choice: his characters and worlds are dominated by an external locus of control: they accept their roles - but authentically? Or in an abdication of authenticity?