Urist

Agree on Hugo being easy to work with. I also think having a static website is a good idea in general due to the low resource usage. My Raspberry Pi, even though it is loaded with many web applications, always manages to serve my hugo website blazingly fast. If you need rich content, for example videos, you can always embed them in some way. Another option I tried that worked okay is Pelican, though I use Hugo now since it seems the better option for me. In general I think any static site generator with templates will do the job. Even a minimalist solution such as pandoc could do it, though it would be much more manual work to get working.

I have also been thinking about it myself for a while. Although I do not have a clear answer, I do think it is helpful to realize that violence comes in many forms and is almost always present in at least one. Take, for example, the state's monopoly on violence, usually handled by the police. Whenever there is a differing opinion on how to handle something, one of the parties may ask: What if I just do the thing I want? If one foregoes compromise and dialogue, there is nothing but violence left as a tool to either push forward or back at a cause. Sometimes there may be legitimate reasons for not wanting to compromise on an issue. Sometimes the ones we see "engaging in violence" are those whose needs have been neglected due to their potential for violence deemed lower than those doing the neglect. Violence is a destructive tool that often have better alternatives. However this should not make us default to the position that there are always clear cut answers to who really started the cycle and that someone are morally faulty for engaging with it.

TL;DR the status quo is usually backed by threats of violence or actual violence. This makes it hard to judge who is at fault for violent actions at any given moment, i.e. it all depends on context.

Of course you both assume x =/= 0 though.

Why should the majority of people settle for the leftover scraps of the capitalist class? I do see that it is possible for UBI to exist within a system where the means of production is under public ownership and democratic control, which I believe is necessary for social justice. However, if UBI is ever implemented in a fundamentally capitalist society, it only means that the wealth disparity has grown so large that the capitalists, in the act of preserving their heads on their necks, allow for a crappy standard of living for the rest. Although I could see myself welcoming UBI for a multitude of reasons, I am also scared that it would entail some form of permanent class disparity with the majority of people forever impoverished.

I agree that they are missing a crucial motive for their actions, namely the cause of doing it for the environment. I still think my critique of the definition's statement of "violence against property" is valid. It seems to be included in the definition because they want to brand certain acts as terrorism, even though destruction of property is a label they could themselves hold as much as their opponents.

I think that is also why some so called eco-terrorists feel themselves justified in acting out "violence against property", since they may see it as an act of self defence against the originial portrayers of said "violence". Ultimately however, I think a distinction should be made between physical violence and destruction of material values. Whether the material value is an entity's legal property or not should also not matter in this case, in my opinion.

From your link on eco-terrorism:

Eco-terrorism is an act of violence which is committed in support of environmental causes, against people or property.[1][2]

Not sure that I count violence against property as valid. If destruction of material values are classified as violence and eco-terrorism, are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?

Imagine saying ideologies are too simplistic and ridiculous and then coming up with: "How about we just make lots of smol countries big?".

Didn't know that it was feasible to create a radiation field by running a large motor. Not that I doubt you, but if you have a source I would be very happy to read more about it.

For real, resource extraction is a big one. Finding ice means they can make, besides water, oxygen and rocket fuel. Not to mention that shelters for radiation are incredibly hard to make without a huge amount of mass, which we cannot efficiently get into orbit without a space elevator. Hence being able to extract it from the location of the colony, say dig into the ground or build thick walls with bricks made from soil, is necessary for long term survival of the inhabitants. I think it is cool that due to these reasons having air balloons over Venus might even be a better option due to it having a protective atmosphere.

I still hoard and often just die on my pile of loot :(

Sure! There are multiple claims in my comments, but one can get the gist by reading about the first prime minister of Norway after World War II, Einar Gerhardsen. To back up this new claim I cite the same Wikipedia article linked above:

Many Norwegians often refer to him as "Landsfaderen" (Father of the Nation); he is generally considered one of the main architects of the post-war rebuilding of Norway after World War II.

A better source might be SNL (which stands for the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia and is owned mostly by different Norwegian universities) though this source is in Norwegian only, but should be fine to auto-translate if needed.

The idea of public ownership over natural resources is something that has been a big part of Norwegian identity, and this idea is also manifested in other laws such as the Freedom to roam law, which essentially states that it is

(...) the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land, lakes, and rivers for recreation and exercise.

Though I would argue much of this identity has been lost in the last 50 years, I am also proud of some of the accomplishments of Norwegian social democracy and think it shows that the idea that "class collaboration is betrayal of socialist values" is wrong. At the same time it is important to admit that there have been problematic parts throughout its development, such as the treatment of the Sámi people and other minorities and the illegal surveillance of suspected communist sympathizers, to name a few.

Nope. The people making these policies laid the plans for nationalizing the natural resources of Norway while in German concentration camps, where they were sent precisely because they were socialists. They are the primary reason, along with the discovery of oil and gas, for Norway being one of the richest countries on earth per capita. That the extraction of natural resources is under democratic control and under a somewhat high taxation scheme is not evidence of a fascist state-corp merger, but something that should be the default in all countries around the world to combat imperialist capital interests (except that the taxes should be even higher).