I think you are very unfair in how you paint the picture. Biden shouldn’t support genocide, obviously. But realistically, you have to choose between 2 genocide supporters. And “stopping trump” is a good reason to vote for 1 genocide supporter over the other. Obviously you don’t like the genocide supporters and you shouldn’t be forced to choose one but you are living in a (practically) 2 party system and both run a genocide supporter.
Me going to school for free, me going to the doc for free
“That is not free that you pay for it by your taxes”
Ok, me paying taxes for the same benefits that I had. Effectively paying back my debt. The debt doesn’t control my life because if I lose my job, I don’t have to pay my debt through taxes, if I change careers, I still pay what I can.
“That is communism!!! That is bad”
Elsewhere, the same service for the same cost
Person goes into debt to go to school, person goes into debt to go to doc
“That is good! Taking accountability”
Same person pay extra through interest rates.
“Usa! Usa! Usa! Low taxes! Small government! Freedom from government!!!”
Person is slaving away at their job because they can’t afford losing their job and missing a pay check.
While I am strongly against a database of pregnant women, especially in regards of the obvious purpose of it.
I am not sure if I would call it cognitive dissonance… Fascistic? Sure.
The idea behind the tracking of pregnancy is the protection of the individual “Child” and “future member of the society” against “overreaching authoritarian forces” which could lead to the death of said “member”. And the threat to the “child” is not the government but rather the mother and the supporting force would be the government. So placing the information to control into the hands of the government is an obvious choice.
In the case of gun ownership, the government is the threat for which the guns exist. The government is the “overreaching authoritarian force” and the gun owner is the “member”. The government isn’t the ally and therefore can’t be trusted with such a list.
Again I am not agreeing them these people. I just don’t think that is cognitive dissonance. I think a better example would the desire for a small government and a database of pregnant women to spy on.
Again imo idiots but not hypocrites for that (specifically… Because they are, just not for that)
Oh I agree but I am strictly talking from the perspective of the idiots who would want such a list.
They want the government to police those poor women in order to “protect” the “child”, so the government can be “trusted” from their pov. And they want the government to police the women because from their pov, the mother is a danger to the “child”.
In the case of the guns, their opinion is that the guns will protect them against the government and so you don’t want them to have that list.
People just don’t understand that political discussions are in nature pr work. You need a good pr strategy to succeed in what you want and impulsively selected actions might be bad for your pr work. And the truth is most people don’t think about pr before posting about why XYZ is bad.
Literally the British government fucked themselves like that. They wanted to avoid responsibility and found someone to blame in their pr work. A few decades later and their country is leaving a huge market to avoid having to comply to the market’s rules, while also kinda wanting to join the market for trading and having to comply again for economically reasons (and the threat of terrorism due to north Irland)… While being unable to make it happen without splitting up the country due to people rejecting that by eu bad. So the best they can do is trade deals with little to no impact on their trading. And while everything goes so well, parts of it are looking into leaving them. Politics are pr work. If you want to have an impact, then play in the big leagues, play like it.
I like the idealism in communism and I have been thinking about how to implement communism without very authoritarian structures, and the anarchist way seems to be the only way, but I don’t see how it would be able to sustain our current lifestyle and amount of people. Exploitation of dependencies without authoritarian structures seems unavoidable to me and avoiding dependencies would probably require that people provide themselves with the resources ; which requires more labor and resources. As of right now, I don’t see a flawless system. (that includes capitalism)
So personally I think, saying that the other people have a bad systemic insight in the context of any general ideology is ungranted.
But I like my libs… Often enough produced with a pretty communistic and anti-authoritarian mindset… (And too often, lack of support for the workers… Ups) But I like them.
Honestly I am not well-read on leftist theory as in formal education. I look into things that I have encountered and think for myself. I would appreciate new ideas and things to look into.
I appreciate the call out on my vagueness in regards of authoritarian structures. Thanks for that.
It isn’t as much a concrete point like “having a police”, but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don’t need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it. So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the “core” of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the “core”. The “core” is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core. Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn’t as similar and an “attack” on the “core” isn’t an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven’t paid them. In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it’s people. Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and “sneaks” exploitation in. But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the “core”. (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the “core”) While any liberal state, enables the “core” to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn’t. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the “core” and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the “core” in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by “small” actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables “small” local exploitation.
I just don’t see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
It is true that I haven’t really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don’t want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don’t have the time.
Well, I would love if that concept could be retired and forgotten sooner than later. But as things are right now, e.g. CRT is required to get there and CRT requires the concept of race :/
E.g. it is a reality that there is currently some correlations between race and e.g. poverty. Even we don’t consider those correlations when enacting laws, we create unjust laws that impact some races more than others, which would feedback into those correlations.
Extremely stupid example for. CT (critical theory in general), if your government would enact a law that would state that the government would build you your dream house for 5 millions. Even if it is more expensive than 5 million. Then “everyone” can get their dream house on paper, but in reality only the rich can get it and they get additional wealth that the general public would have to cover. Impoverishing the poor more and enrich the wealthiest more. So an unjust law.
I strongly dislike the design because it places a 3rd alternative in between the two parties. America needs a left wing party. Not another right wing one.
I read it here before but the best way is deconstructing a specific case of the person in question choosing. The problem is that replacing one influencer with another one won’t change the understanding issue of misplaced trust in media/people.
I think that these things should be voluntary by the way. Both for success chances and pure respect for your sibling.
Ask him if they would be interested. Then make them choose an episode. Prepare yourself. Ask them to prepare a little document in which they express their understanding and lesson that they learned from the episode. Ask them if they are willing to investigate how true these things are. Look for evidence together or alone. When done, get together and talk about the truthfulness of the ideas.
Alternatively ask yourself if they have some kind of expertise in something and look if there is a Joe Rogan episode about and suggest them to watch it. The deconstruction would happen automatically. You can help by ask them questions about it. Having to vocalize criticism towards something is an amazing reflection exercise.
I am “against” religion as I think it does more harm than good but I am pro religious freedom for everyone and a peaceful cooperative global society. So I think that makes me hardly hateful towards religions or the believers. Well tbh I have a hard time accepting religious extremist positions in societies, but everything comes with a price… I take religious freedom for everyone if that means someone thinks a book with instructions on how to abort a baby is against abortion and that it should be law.
Mate, I would agree with you if you wouldn’t fail to realize that I ask someone who made a statement regarding the election in the context of ending the genocide. Acting like I set the scene, is dishonest. I am sure you aren’t doing it intentional. You just forgot.
And you are right and wrong about being unable about ending a genocide by voting. You are also kinda unable to end it by protesting… Until it actually works. It is an attempt. An attempt is something and something is better than nothing while people die.
Also let’s not act like saying you wouldn’t vote for Biden over it isn’t pressuring the current one in power.
And you might also should have realized that in my question I asked included the likelihood of the desired outcome. So I had the whole breaking election promises, betting on the wrong horse and it all being fucking pointless covered.
And btw. Now you gave me an answer to my question from your perspective, it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t change shit. In other words, vote for whoever you want for other reasons. I know your opinion and I got my answer from you. Still not the guy that I asked but at least an answer.
It is that simple. I heard you out too. I just wanted to highlight that you choose to engage with my question to another person. Highlighting how extremely odd this interaction is. I asked another person a question. You chose to engage that question but you avoided answering while insulting me. In the end, you finally express your opinion. I had to point out that you finally answered the question that was the starting point of our conversation that you chose to engage with, in hopes you realize that I actually want an fucking answer and that i ain’t asking for much of an discussion or proof standard but just a fucking opinion. and again you could have just avoided it completely, you chose to engage.
Someone stop the ride, I want to get off (midwest.social)
45% (lemm.ee)
But but... If gun owners are tracked, we can be targeted! 😭😭😭 (lemmy.world)
Just getting into JS (feddit.uk)
Single Issue Voters will save the world! (lemmy.world)
Oh boy, they're both the same, I can't decide... (lemmy.world)
Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much (lemm.ee)
Do any of them know what the word “liberal” actually means?
js Monk and Fly (sh.itjust.works)
How might perspectives on race change in a hypothetical fully-egalitarian future? (sh.itjust.works)
Oh please let it be a fully egalitarian future…...
Brain worms 2024? (i.ibb.co)
Comic by Brooke Bourgeois for The New Yorker.
It is so convenient and free. (discuss.tchncs.de)
Marriage is like.. (i.ibb.co)
Joe Rogan - suggestions to switch my sibling to better media
My 27 yr old sibling is a hard core follower of Joe Rogan 💩...
Every time Zionists call me an antisemite for speaking out against Israel (lemmy.ml)
Linkedin (jlai.lu)
George Washington University encampment... (lemmy.world)
source: x.com/jmcmaster29/status/1786588095162335328