What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
Being ‘short-sighted’ is irrelevant. That’s not at all how all evolution works. Dollo’s Law of Irreversibility knocks down any notion of ‘devolving’ existing anyway. Evolutionary paths are not going to go trace themselves back again.
-
They do not, as evidence by the last two decades of "progressive" politics here in the US.
-
The US has not had either, truly.
-
Humanity also just can't coexist peacefully with anything. We ruin everything we touch. Our hubris will be our downfall and I take comfort in the fact that the Earth will heal after we extinct ourselves.
-
And you're not going to miss a days pay to protest or vote when you know neither candidate gives a shit about your health and well-being.
-
eh, the question was "What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?" rather than "change my mind"
Could probably start a flame war on where I draw the line. Josef Fritzl or Albert Fish deserve/d to be put the fuck down. But then I'd consider Dahmer the
other side of the line, he committed horrific crimes but he was clearly deeply mentally ill and the result of severe societal failures. -
You are describing intentional misgendering. That's against our instance rules, so make sure you use preferred pronouns for folks who display them.
-
Defs not tryna flame, I agree with you, some mfers needa be put down. (The rich for example)
-
Very cool. Thanks, I'd never heard of that book.
Robert Heinlein worked on some real political campaigns back in the day and it shows in his writings.
Another fun political writer is Ross Thomas. He was a WW2 veteran who went from being a Washington reporter to a crime novelist.
"The Fools In Town Are On Our Side" is about a plan to clean up a small Southern city by making it "
so corrupt that even the pimps will vote for reform.""The Porkchoppers" is about a Nixon era Union election. It's all about the nuts and bolts of running a dirty campaign.
-
someone hoards huge amounts of items they can't possibly ever use we rightly consider them to be mentally ill. someone hoards more money than they could ever possibly spend in several lifetimes and we think they're a goddamn virtuoso fuuuuuck that shit.
-
The idea is briefly mentioned in the book "Double Star" by Robert Heinlein. He doesn't provide an actual constitution.
Governors and mayors would still run the local area, but the national laws would be passed by a legislature composed of people all elected 'at large.'
The Congressmember from Texas has no power in his state. He can't force anyone to do something. They can go to Washington and vote for a law that's enforced by the police.
-
I think if we eliminated money, we would just invent it again and call it something else.
-
-
Religion can be a force for good. For social cohesion and a feeling of belonging. That it often isn't speaks more to the samesuch cultural and emotional rot that has affected literally everything than to religion unto itself.
-
It actually makes perfect sense for a country to want to limit or tariff importation of goods. This, if done right, can bring industrialisation into the country. You can't have a nation that is all middle-managers, despite the First World's best attempts to become that, it's just fundamentally unsustainable. And while you can have a nation that just produces/exports raw materials, this is ultimately bad for the people in that nation.
-
-
Other Abrahamic religions play around with a lot of the same themes of excusing and encouraging ethnic cleansing and other classic biblical virtues-against-humanity such as massacring all living things in an entire city, but their stake in the present distribution of global power is much smaller, and they consequently represent a smaller threat to human life. I am not opposed to subsequent criminalization of Islam, as it is no better, but in the name of curbing the racist element which is highly likely to result from such policy, and also mindfully of the difficulty of phasing out Islam, I do not believe that it is productive to put it together on the chopping block with Christianity in the world we live in now. Judaism isn't so much of a problem due to its more widely practiced interpretative principle and due to its weaker practical hierarchy compared to Christianity.
Can i still like Jesus? Can i still study Christ as a historical figure?
I view following biblical orders as the defining characteristic of a Christian person. (This view is generally uncontroversial among Christians, who generally do not take seriously those who claim to be Christian without having faith in the Bible's inerrancy.)
There is a set of terrorist beliefs prescribed by the Bible that the average person who simply likes Jesus Christ as a literary figure probably doesn't hold. Those people tend to have different socialization and visible attitudes compared to Christians of the definitively violent variety, and aren't difficult to tell apart. I certainly do not believe those people should be gone after.
What about ancient religious art? Destroy it?
We must preserve the historical account of Christianity being the leading force of anti-intellectualism and collective narcissism of Christian nations, in addition to being an indispensable tool of fascism around the world and a significant contributor to solidification of Nazi rule in its time. Destroying the artistic record of history would not accomplish anything useful, much like how removing swastikas from museums of World War 2 wouldn't help with doing away with neo-Nazism.
What's the punishment if i get caught thinking about The Lord, or God forbid, praying!?
Refer to the legislation prohibiting display of Nazi symbols as implemented by many European countries. Countries like Germany have had a rough history with the way they implemented such legislation, with false-positive rulings and enforcement that were at odds with preservation of history and antifascist self-expression, but modern legislation against rehabilitation of Nazism is much better than that, and offers some valuable experience on how to tackle this inherently difficult problem.
-
It's less 'too much pc' and more 'purity politics' imo
There's a great post on tumblr that really fuckin' nailed it:
"The trannies should be able to piss in whatever toilet they want and change their bodies however they want. Why is it my business if some chick has a dick or a guy has a pie? I'm not a trannie or a fag so I don't care, just give 'em the medicine they need."
"This is an LGBT safe space. Of COURSE I fully support individuals who identify as transgender and their right to self-determination! I just think that transitioning is a very serious choice and should be heavily regulated. And there could be a lot of harm in exposing cis children to such topics, so we should be really careful about when it is appropriate to mention trans issues or have too much trans visibility."
One of the above statements is Problematic and the other is slightly annoying. If we disagree on which is which then working together for a better future is going to get really fucking difficult.
-
I don't consider "devolving" to mean tracing back evolutionary paths but, instead, adaptations that we don't value.
Take Idiocracy for example. Humanity selectively breeding to become dumber with every genration. Devolving, not backwards, but away from intelligence.
-
Can using neutral pronouns be misgendering? I was always under the impression that they’re universally applicable regardless of the other person’s gender
-
I would argue calling all they/them is the opposite of misgendering. "They" has no gender. It is neuter.
"Intentional non-gendering" seems sensible and inoffensive. No chance of misgendering anyone.
-
Yes, if you are aware of someone's preferred pronouns and choose to ignore them.
-
Depends on what you consider "money" and what Mode of Production you have.
