• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • The phrase is about hierarchy. Any metaphysical claim can be used to create a “power over” relationship. If a metaphysical belief causes an individual to behave differently a “power over” relationship has been established.

    I sense Noble Savage and Orientalism in drags arguments. Why are “power over” relationships stemming from religion only a “white” person problem? Is drag familiar with the Rohingya and their oppressors?



  • Wanting an end to needless slaughter, healthcare and working equipment sounds reasonable. I am glad there are reasonable voices on Lemmy.

    I am probably missing a lot of information on Israel, but continued learning is important. I recently learned about the USS Liberty incident in 1967. I am not sure how Israeli’s could mess up that bad. There are still individuals maintaining the incident was deliberate. Who knows? Troubling history abounds.

    People have different reasons for being on Lemmy. Examples are looking to feel validated or to pick a fight. I think these folk also existed in ye olde times. Maybe the attention economy is amplifying specific behaviors that would not have been amplified in the olde times.

    Being fair, I usually come to Lemmy to argue. I am probably part of the problem.










  • Becoming familiar with other ideas is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Social Democrat or Libertarian. Real people hold these political ideas. My transition over years was Democrat since I opposed hawkish Republican imperialism, but I rejected corporate power, so Social Democrat, but I rejected hierarchical power, so Anarchist. Through reading I know Pacifism meshes with any of these ideas. I have never been a Pacifist, but I applaud anyone that takes the time to explore politics even if we do not agree.

    Being able to have conversations with people around you is important. Reading theory from other politics helps. Most people around me consider themselves conservative. They say talking points like “I’m for small government”. Having read Libertarian texts like Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, I can discuss the minimal state as a Libertarian idea. I can then transition to “Nozick’s minimal state is not small enough”. In my area this approach opens conversation more than banging a drum about being a Democrat, Leftist, Communist or Anarchist.



  • I referenced a news story in which the parachute on an air dropped aid package failed to deploy crushing people underneath.

    Genocide is not ethical. Voting for genocide, but less, does not change the ethics of genocide. Part of the coalition that elected Biden in 2020 will not vote for him again due to his support of genocide.

    The options for such voters are:

    1. Being complicite in genocide
    2. Voting third party or not at all

    I understand the two party system created by first-past-the-post. I understand third party candidates are unlikely to win. I understand Democrats are rightfully nervous. If Democrats are nervous enough, they should do something to change the minds of voters that will not vote for genocide.



  • I understand needing to eat the sandwich. I also understand making a collective first-past-the-post choice individual is a flawed argument.

    However there is an individual component to saying I really can’t eat peanut butter. The decision then becomes stand your ground (no peanut butter), compromise (just a little peanut butter) or protest (full peanut butter; see you in the ER). The claim is the compromise is best.

    How do we reach a point where we no longer need to compromise on peanut butter?


  • Offering a sandwich with more and less peanut butter when I am allergic to peanuts still means I will be sick. I’m hungry and I want a sandwich with no peanut butter. There are third party candidates providing sandwiches with no peanut butter. I am sorry demand decreases for the sandwich with less peanut butter, but I am unable to stomach peanuts.