What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
Ima be honest. I just don’t fuck with pronouns. I’ll typically use they even if I know what their preferred ones are. That or whatever feels better for what I’m talking about.
You are describing intentional misgendering. That's against our instance rules, so make sure you use preferred pronouns for folks who display them.
-
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.Defs not tryna flame, I agree with you, some mfers needa be put down. (The rich for example)
-
This is exactly the political description described in Ann Palmer's "Terra Ignota." Government by consent, irrespective of geography. People would join with up to one Hive -- some embodied idealist motherly traits like the Cousins, others were strictly about the nationstates of old, like the European Union. It's four volumes, but is an interesting tale of 25th century political science.
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.
-
Defs not tryna flame, I agree with you, some mfers needa be put down. (The rich for example)
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.
-
But the reason it's based on address is because the person you vote for has power over that location. In this system, what would that person have power over?
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.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
I think if we eliminated money, we would just invent it again and call it something else.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
-
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.
-
-
Only Christianity, or all Abrahamic religions, or all spirituality?
Can i still like Jesus? Can i still study Christ as a historical figure?
What about ancient religious art? Destroy it?
What's the punishment if i get caught thinking about The Lord, or God forbid, praying!?
Just for context i am not religious or spiritual, but it seems like a thought crime.
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.
-
There can be too much political correctness at times.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
You are describing intentional misgendering. That's against our instance rules, so make sure you use preferred pronouns for folks who display them.
Can using neutral pronouns be misgendering? I was always under the impression that they’re universally applicable regardless of the other person’s gender
-
You are describing intentional misgendering. That's against our instance rules, so make sure you use preferred pronouns for folks who display them.
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.
-
Can using neutral pronouns be misgendering? I was always under the impression that they’re universally applicable regardless of the other person’s gender
Yes, if you are aware of someone's preferred pronouns and choose to ignore them.
-
I think if we eliminated money, we would just invent it again and call it something else.
Depends on what you consider "money" and what Mode of Production you have.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
I don't really know what constitutes a "political creed," really, so I don't know how to answer.
-
Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.
People should be free to vote outside the two party system secure in the knowledge that their vote will still be counted if their preference didn't win.
::: spoiler Videos on Electoral Reform
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.
-
The concept of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
There's no nuance from the left. The left polices itself like the radical right thinks they (the party of law and order) do.
Had a podcaster get dropped by their long time partner because there were lewd text messages sent.
I'm tired of the reactionary bullshit, currently Dawkins and Gaiman are being dropped, and I understand not wanting to associate/support Dawkins' current views, the guy wrote very persuasive works that shouldn't lose value because he lost his empathy.
I still read and enjoy enders game despite knowing what a tool Card turned into, how is it so difficult to separate art from the artist?
how is it so difficult to separate art from the artist?
Can you have art without an artist? Can you have an artist without art? No. Art is a human expression. It comes from a person. AI art might be technically accomplished but it only says something when a human is in control of the AI. You can just kind of tune out that aspect of a work of art and try to enjoy it on its own merits, but in doing so you are effectively censoring the art and not engaging with it on its own terms. The artist is an integral part of the work.
-
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.
I'm a gender abolitionist philosophically, so I get what you are saying and I would also prefer for everyone to agree to adopt using gender neutral language and be done with it. But we should still respect the preferred pronouns of others, because it isn't up to you or me to force that choice on everyone else. It's not much different from a Republican (for example) refusing to use she/her towards a trans woman. For some folks their pronouns are super important to them, so imo it's just disrespectful not to use them when they are stated.
-
Centrists want the status quo, yes, but mostly just for themselves.
That's not true at all. I know Centrists who care about everybody, and want everybody to be safe/happy/successful. They see it as a "floating tide raises all boats" kind of thing.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
But only in a kind of theoretical sense. They think the status quo is best for everyone, but it's really only best for them. What is a more centrist sentiment than "our system may not be perfect, but it's the best there is"? See Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" for an eloquent condemnation of "moderates".
-
I agree, animal rights are important. I am not sure that animals are worth as much as humans morally, but even so, the argument for shrimp welfare is extremely moving. Well worth reading. It's easy to imagine shrimp's lives are meaningless because they are small, have tiny brains, and have a silly name.
It seems pretty mind bending to morally rank organisms. By what metric do you estimate humans are more valuable than a random animal?
