This was an extremely informative read. It answered a number of questions I've had rattling in my brain that I just never dug around enough to get good information on. Thank you for these comments. 
I'm not sure if it's a different situation in Europe than where I'm at as far as things like self checkout, surveillance, how much store employees care, etc., but I'll tell you what works for, uh... some friends I know in the US. This is only for grocery stores with self checkout and using a handbasket. First, buy one of those reusable grocery bags you bring from home if you don't already have one. It should be opaque and fairly rigid. Grab a handbasket and put your normal, green-friendly grocery bag in it with the bag open. Expensive + small things go into the bag. Larger, hopefully cheaper things go in the basket but on top of the bag. You will be paying legit for the latter things. Do not put things into your bag if it would exceed 1/3 of your bag volume and don't put stuff on top that would exceed 2/3 (a little bit more is fine). Go to the self checkout. Take the things out of your basket but not out of your bag which stays in the handbasket along with its contents. Scan those items and pay for them as normal. Start loading your purchased groceries in your grocery bag on top of your unpurchased groceries that never left your bag. Casually leave the grocery store with bag in hand, along with a receipt for a bunch of stuff in your bag, right there filling the top 2/3rs of it. There's just more stuff beneath it that isn't on the receipt.
There are a few things that can go wrong and you can probably think of them. However, having known people who have done this for years and never had a problem is a pretty good indication that these things rarely do (if ever) end up going wrong, so long as you're really careful, casual, and only do it in the appropriate stores. And yes, this is done with cameras all over the store and at least one employee managing all the self checkouts. That last part is why it's better to do this when it's busy at the store, but it usually seems to work fine even when it's not.
edit: typos fixed.
The United States Empire doesn't have much time left on this earth. I think they are already into the process of ruining it for the rest of us on their way out.
It wouldn't surprise me if this were in fact true, but if you or @yogthos@lemmy.ml can point me to where you saw this, I would really appreciate being able to read about it. Regardless of what heinous crimes against humanity and all life on earth that the US would actually perpetrate in a large scale nuclear war scenario, I was under the impression that their nuclear posture and targeting strategies are "highly classified" and even though they don't have any NFU policy, they still at least pretend it's about deterrence.
Then you need to do more reading because I did work in this field and have read the science on it as well. First all, you have to take into account what time scales are being discussed. What you're reading is, I'm all but certain, just talking about the coming few decades, in which yes, millions at least will likely die. And even then the science that tends to reach the public is toned down, pacified, and doesn't represent the whole truth. You should be familiar with this as a communist trying to get an understanding of what's really going on with the world via popular journalism. Is what you're reading about "catastrophic weather events" also discussing what will be happening 1000 years from now? 10,000? Despite the longer scale, what we are doing right now and in the coming decades will have an effect on those longer scales. Climate change is so much more than simply an intensification of weather events. It is literally a rapid change to the composition of our atmosphere. An atmosphere which has, by the way, been completely altered by life in one of the most chemically fundamental ways possible, from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one. This is what I mean when I say even many leftists just do not understand how extreme the risks are here. A runaway greenhouse wouldn't just kill a billion, it could well end our species and most other species of "higher lifeforms."
Well... 
Earth becoming more like Venus is an inevitability in the high hundreds of millions of years (and for scale, multicellular life has been around for roughly 5-600M years, with the more than 3 billion before that just being simple single-celled prokaryotic life), but that is completely independent of anthropogenic climate change, it is because of the expansion of the sun towards it's red giant phase. In terms of being habitable to life, Earth is easily past the half-way mark already, no matter what. However, that is far enough out that it doesn't bear worrying about and isn't something we can have any sort of impact on.
That said, the climate change that we as a species are causing right now could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect on much shorter time scales. The fact is, there have been times in Earth's history where it has been so hot that complex life could mostly only survive at the poles (with the equator being a death zone to all but simple, single-cellular extremophiles) and there have been times where Earth was encased almost entirely in ice except perhaps at the equators - not just our usual conception of an ice age, but "snowball earth," and this was likely caused by certain forms of simple life, fascinatingly enough. The feedback loops we are triggering right now have a potential to drastically change the composition of the atmosphere on a far shorter timescale, one in which we are talking about an end to most complex life (obviously ourselves included). It was almost certainly volcanism that caused Venus to go from a mostly habitable planet to the completely, utterly inhospitable world it is. Volcanism has also been responsible for extreme heat and mass extinctions on Earth, but obviously it never tipped over into Venus-like territory. The thing is, right now we're changing the atmosphere at a rate far faster than volcanism has in the past! And rate of change matters a lot with this kind of thing. I'm repeating myself, but again, it is not a certainty but it is a possibility that anthropogenic climate change could hit tipping points that Venus-ifies Earth on a much shorter, nearer term than anything relating to the expansion of the sun, on time scales that are worth worrying about (if we value humanity as a whole), and is the sort of thing we can have an impact on.
Both. I do believe that "communism will win" as an inevitability (with one big caveat, see below). Capitalism obviously is unsustainable and rife with internal contradictions that can only lead to its eventual demise. The obvious and broad example being that it requires infinite growth on a finite planet. But I think it can get very bad before it gets better, and expect it will further devolve into fascism (much more so than it already has) for most if not all of the western world, and the entire world will suffer as a result. Socialism, then communism will eventually emerge (since fascism is just as doomed by its contradictions as capitalism is), but before we get there, I expect there is going to be some truly unimaginably dark and horrible times on the way there. So in that sense, I am ultimately optimistic about the future of the world, but extremely pessimistic about its more immediate future.
But now for the caveat. I think that most people, even leftists, don't fully appreciate how much climate change is going to reshape the world. There is a real chance that it will get bad enough that civilization may not survive, that humanity as a species will be among the many that don't make it through the mass extinction we've only just entered. Even people fully on board with knowing climate change is bad and must be curtailed as much as possible as soon as possible still mostly don't realize how much a genuine existential threat it is on a planetary scale, on a scale of centuries and longer. It is by no means a certainty, but given the feedback loops we don't fully understand and definitely don't know how to interrupt, there is a possibility of Earth even going the way of Venus. Obviously I hope that's not the case, but it would be a mistake not to recognize the extreme potential of climate change. If we are able to mitigate it in time, I am like I said, ultimately optimistic. But I am beyond afraid that we won't be able to mitigate it in time.
In other words, it's not just "socialism or barbarism," it's socialism or annihilation.
I agree with all of that, but I think what's relevant here is that more people are becoming willing to aim the violence in the other direction, from the masses and towards the state. You are 100% right that political violence has always been normalized and accepted, but specifically (like in your example) it was the state use of violence against people that was normalized and accepted while people using violence against the state was broadly considered not just taboo but immoral.
The numbers in OP aren't just describing an increase in acceptance of all "political violence," but an acceptance for the masses to wield that political violence against the state, which is a very interesting, maybe even profound shift, a shift that is indicative of the ongoing collapse of the empire.
Yeah, I think it's really unfortunate that we can't dunk on this sort of thing on hexbear unless someone sufficiently famous says it, especially for our anarchist comrades who may not want to post their dunks on an ML-specific instance, or for people who have their feeds set to local. But since several months ago, it was inexplicably decreed that there is no place on hexbear for dunking if it's not actual politicians or someone with enough renown like Elon Musk directly, who are on the receiving end of the dunk. So for future reference, if you do want to dunk or discuss something concerning (or worse) that you found online somewhere, you now have to go to lemmygrad to do so. Thems the rules.
alcohol seems fine to me in comparison to the things that drive people to drink excessively
This is so relative and variable, it's impossible to fully agree or disagree with. Addiction and the root causes for it involve such a complex interactions of different factors that such a statement is almost meaningless.
Like, is alcohol "fine" compared to the crushing weight of a lifetime of extreme alienation due to capitalism? I don't know if "fine" is the right word, but sure, yes, alcohol is the smaller evil and the lesser detriment to society over all, in comparison. But that doesn't mean that the person who, completely understandably, drinks a bottle of vodka every night for years to deal with that alienation isn't doing damage to themselves (and likely increased pain and difficulty for their loved ones), by orders of magnitude greater than just the slow burn of alienation alone would have, even as the vodka makes the alienation vastly more bearable in the immediate short term.
And yes, almost any kind of distraction that replaces some pain of reality with a bit of dopamine can become an addiction that can potentially do great harm to the person afflicted by it. But there is still a spectrum of how bad various addictions can be to a person's over all health, and alcohol undeniably holds a place close to the far end of that spectrum of harm. For example, you aren't going to die at 40 from liver failure because of a social media addiction.
Addiction and habituation are complex. Different people are effected to different degrees by different types of addictions, but that doesn't mean all distractions that can potentially become addictions are equally dangerous or detrimental. None of that has to do with any of those addictions being at "fault" either. But it's a simple fact that continuously using alcohol as a means of coping with difficulty or pain will come with rapidly increasing costs to a person's health as well as diminishing returns on its efficacy even as a coping mechanism.
Seriously. It's the only reason I ever would have clicked the link. I feel bamboozled.
Yep, this is who the episode was about where the rule came from.
In the music video? Yeah, that's not going to last for anyone, lol. But for what I was talking about above, I know people who have been doing that at the same stores weekly since covid began and have never had a single issue besides an evil eye stare.
Fuck it, just do what these guys do:
Do your bit, Rob the Supermarket
It was Target that was well known for doing this, tracking shoplifters and waiting until someone could get arrested for a felony when a minimum amount of dollar worth was stolen. I never did, but from my understanding, Target was the place shoplifters knew not to shoplift as it was and likely still is extremely aggressive this way and more likely to break the law itself by detaining you against your will (which in the US is technically not legal but that doesn't always stop them from doing it, especially if they think you don't know that). Walmart on the other hand, was actually surprisingly hands-off and one of the easiest of those kinds of stores to steal from, I was told. It's possible this has changed in the last couple years that I haven't kept up, but well into "post"-covid times, if you were shoplifting from one of the big box stores like that, a good bet was Walmart while Target was regarded as the hard-ass goon-hiring bastards and hence the one to avoid.
-- EDIT: Removing a bunch of stuff I'm not 100% sure is wise to leave up
I will note here, that while these are among the laws you should know about and use to your full potential benefit, it doesn't mean that the stores necessarily will, know them or follow them. Regular grocery stores, from everything I know, really don't give a shit. The method I described above works so well because even if someone does eye what you're doing and get suspicious, it will be underpaid retail workers and grocery baggers that almost certainly don't care or are even glad to see that kind of thing happening. BUT other kinds of stores are not necessarily like that. Part of why Target was so bad is because they were known for not caring that they themselves and their thugs were the ones breaking the law. A time could be coming when even grocery stores start getting more like this, and there are probably ones that already do. It can't hurt to test out the situation on something light. A single bottle of shampoo. Get a feel for the store. Items do matter. Don't steal the alcohol. THIS is watched heavily in large part because of minors who frequently try to steal it for obvious reasons. I knew someone else who often stole from grocery stores literally by walking in, taking shit and walking out. None of this trying to look legit shit. He was shockingly successful until he tried doing it with liquor. That ended his shoplifting career. At least from grocery stores. In that town. For a little while.
I hope this has been a helpful comment.
Mods: If any of this shouldn't be here, I get it, no hard feelings if it's deleted. I'll also gladly be the creator who removes it if that's better.
That's my only issue with the image. It kind of implies the the blue pill and red pill tend to be mutually exclusive when in fact those things are very often comorbidities.
If you want to read further but past hexbear discussion on the topic of "Uncle Ted," he was talked about quite a bit around here when he died a year ago. I remember a couple threads where people were debunking the mythology you'll sometimes see portraying him as a kind of based anarchist. I can't seem to find the exact one I was thinking of, but here is another with 100 comments.
Just because you aren't used to hearing about the vast reality beyond the propaganda bubble you've (knowingly or unknowingly) confined yourself to, that doesn't mean that something you encounter outside of that bubble that contradicts it isn't factually the truth. If anything, as a rule of thumb, it's more likely to be closer to the truth if it contradicts whatever narrative nonsense you've been swallowing from any given large western media news outlet.
Bro, learn to read paragraphs. My comment above is literally made up of two of them of very normal and standard size. Have you ever read a book? Paragraphs written in places other than twitter or reddit tend not to be broken up arbitrarily every 2 sentences like it seems you wanted me to do.
The question is why won't you condemn the aggressor and stop putting the onus of peace on the people who are being murdered by an aggressor?
The people being murdered... Oh, you mean the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine? The ones who the openly fascist banderite government (that coupe'd the democratically elected government in 2014) were trying to ethnically cleanse when Russia stepped in and prevented it? Yes, I do support those people of Donbas, and seeing as they support Russia, you should too if you care about innocent people getting murdered. Similarly, I condemn the aggressors, the aforementioned banderite Ukrainian fascists and their NATO backers.
I'm not the person you were asking, but yes, I also support the people of Western Ukraine, the vast majority of whom do not want to fight in this war but are being press ganged, literally kidnapped off the street by the Ukrainian government and shipped off to be cannon fodder and die on the front line. I fully support them and advocate for the immediate end of this war so that no more of them will die needlessly in this senseless meat grinder that NATO and the Ukrainian government insist on perpetuating despite their inevitable loss. If you care about human life and if you care about justice, then you would completely support Ukraine immediately accepting this peace offer. If you think human life is cheap (especially if it's foreign to you) and that Ukrainian working class people are expendable and should go ahead and die for the sake of lines on a map that favor western countries, then yeah, that would be in line with cheerleading for the Ukrainian government and opposing the offer of peace.