Ah, yeah that’s a very US-centric example.
Idk if y’all are dealing with the same “feminism is actually bad” stuff we are, but I posted this comment shortly after the above post and using the same template.
Disclaimer: I’m decently new to discussing with people on the internet, where it’s harder to ask a lot of questions. I think the general logic tracks, but in person I wouldn’t recommend jumping to conclusions like I did there.
Edit: other examples:
I’ve had some luck by working backwards to things you agree on, then stepping forward until you start to diverge. You need to be genuinely engaged in their thought process, though, so prepare for psychological damage.
E.g. for immigration, you can start from “this is super fucked up and I don’t think we should do it. Why do y’all support it?”
It make take a few "why"s, but I think their reasoning will ultimately end up at:
Which is wrong, but at least is a logical progression that you can challenge. They believe that the social benefits of deporting people outweigh the human costs of doing so. It’s “for the greater good” and “you gotta break a few eggs to make bread.”
You now get the privilege of talking about the real cause of low wages and high prices being capitalism. You’re in your element and should have a DEEP bag of examples. As usual, tailor to your audience, make it simple, and try to avoid trigger words like any -isms.
If you convince them that capitalism is the problem, not supply and demand, then there’s no longer any benefit to deporting people and it’s only a fucked up thing to do.
They’ll have weak, residual arguments like “but they’re breaking The Law” or “but maybe it’s a little supply and demand too, as a treat?”
At that point, you’ve won. You can provide weaker pushback on these, and start looking for a way to end the conversation.
There is no world in which it ends in “oh. actually you’re right” - our brains take time to change. Your goal is just for them to think about it by themselves.
This might be the bit already, but I unironically think the body is a great metaphor for how society should run!
E.g. different cells have different specializations, but every cell gets the nutrients it needs.
I’m saying you are making choices based on values you hold, and that I’m judging you based on those values.
You are choosing to continue to say pussy, despite knowing that some folks find it hurtful.
That shows that you value your word choice over how those words might unintentionally hurt other people. You’re refusing to put away your shopping cart.
Because you hold that value, I think you’re an asshole.
Jesus Christ if you’re non-binary that’s somehow worse.
Our actions come from the values and beliefs that we hold. People should be judged by those values and beliefs.
Your actions show that you are not willing to just pick a different word to avoid potentially hurting people. You’re an asshole if you don’t for the same reason you’re an asshole if you don’t put away your shopping cart.
Your values and beliefs result in you prioritizing your own petty interests over caring about your fellow humans, and those values and beliefs make you an asshole.
Buying into the patriarchy was my charitable assumption for why you hold those beliefs, since they’re the default settings for the vast majority of men. You’d just be a person that needed to reexamine the values that society pushed onto you vs what you believe for yourself. Everyone should constantly be doing that, and there’s no shame in it.
If you’ve self-examined, considered the impact that these values have, then decided that you LIKE them and that they make you who you want to be, that makes you a fucking sociopath.
Oh wow, yeah you are a big tough guy! I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking to a PC. I’ll go back to tending my shop.
> See anything you like?
Grow the fuck up, dweeb, you’re just like the other boys.
Good people will use bad slang, yes. But good people have empathy and don’t want to hurt other people. Good people will change their behavior if they’re hurting people, even if unintentionally.
Being a good person requires effort. If you’re not willing to put in the effort, you don’t get to be a good person.
You are too much of a coward to face your own flaws.
You are too weak to consider your impact on others.
You are so concerned with being a “man” that you aren’t being human.
You’re far from unique in that, though.
Men are socialized to be uncaring “tough guys,” and everyone loses because of it. If you actually want to be different, you need to stop buying into that crap.
If you care about being a straight talker, then call someone a coward. You are not getting your point across well by using “pussy” and meaning “cat, because cats are cowardly”.
Language is an imperfect way of communicating thoughts, and works by mutual understanding on which words are used for which thoughts. The usage is subtle and constantly changing.
Misogynists use “pussy” in a hurtful way, and so there’s a mutual understanding that someone who says “pussy” might be a misogynist.
Most people don’t want to be confused for being a misogynist, so someone might assume that you’re unaware and tell you that you sound misogynistic. If you “laugh in their face and call them something much worse,” that’s fucked up.
You’re still free to use it, sure, but don’t pretend that it’s effective communication. You’re making a conscious choice that you care more about using a specific word than about communicating your thoughts.
And you think that makes you cool? You think you’re a tough guy because you don’t care if you’re hurting someone else?
Nobody can force you to care about other people. I hope that some day you decide to for yourself.
The etymology is not relevant.
When I called someone a pussy, I did not mean cat. I did not mean pusillanimous. I meant vagina.
My usage of “pussy” as an insult came from misogyny, so I don’t use it as an insult anymore.
I could have easily said that I actually meant something else, but I choose to own my mistakes and try to be better.
The judge repeatedly appeared to be sympathetic to authors, suggesting that Meta’s AI training may be a “highly unusual case” where even though “the copying is for a highly transformative purpose, the copying has the high likelihood of leading to the flooding of the markets for the copyrighted works.”
And when Shanmugam argued that copyright law doesn’t shield authors from “protection from competition in the marketplace of ideas,” Chhabria resisted the framing that authors weren’t potentially being robbed, Reuters reported.
“But if I’m going to steal things from the marketplace of ideas in order to develop my own ideas, that’s copyright infringement, right?” Chhabria responded.
Wired noted that he asked Meta’s lawyers, “What about the next Taylor Swift?” If AI made it easy to knock off a young singer’s sound, how could she ever compete if AI produced “a billion pop songs” in her style?
There are plenty of people that think that each of those things are morally wrong, and some who would say that they’re much worse than a bomb threat.
Those people are writing the laws.
Legality and morality are two completely different things. It’s a comfortable lie to think they’re the same.
Having an email provider that will not comply with law enforcement is important because any of us could be next on the target list.
I’m not saying “yay, it’s morally good to send bomb threats.”
Folks who care about privacy don’t want their email provider engaging with local authorities.
when tyranny becomes law rebellion becomes duty
“Illegal” is NOT immoral, and when laws are increasingly being passed by right-wing nutjobs, folks doing the right thing will be doing illegal things.
Any platform has three options:
3 is obviously the thing we’d like, but no company is going to open itself up to legal threats by doing it.
This article shows that Proton Mail is falling into category 2. I think that category should exist to protect vulnerable populations.
its employees had received emails containing obscene and vulgar content sent via Proton Mail.
the email service reportedly refused to share details about the sender of the allegedly offensive emails, despite a police complaint.
Last year, the police department of the southern state of Tamil Nadu had sought to block Proton Mail after the email service was found to have been used for sending hoax bomb threats to local schools.
Honestly, pretty glowing review of Proton Mail
They’re also great to bust open when scared, to make a quick getaway. Making zoidberg noises as you scuttle away is optional, but recommended.
Thanks for responding! I definitely agree on the major points. I’m having trouble making questions, but here are some statements that you should feel free to challenge:
(Focusing on just the US)
My perception is that there’s more than enough productive capacity to meet everyone’s basic needs (food, water, shelter, healthcare), and the reason folks go without is capitalism’s failure to prioritize meeting everyone’s needs. I agree that the simplest solution is to nationalize firms/industries, put them under democratic control, and collectively direct them to work for the good of the people. I’m down with that being priority #1, since people are fuckin’ dying.
We seem very far from having enough power to do that now, and I like anarchism’s prefiguration as a way of building a mass movement that is able to ultimately gain enough influence to make that happen.
I’m also personally fascinated by the emergent properties of a group of people and like viewing human society through the lens of a superorganism. Under that lens, the values a society holds guides each individual’s behaviors, and the aggregate behavior of individuals shape society. It’s certainly not materialist, but it’s why I focused on individual incentives above.
I’m mostly pulling from here for concerns about the state and here (and here) for individuals mutual influence with society.
Do you have pointers to help me understand what makes you prefer Marxism? I know there’s been a bunch of discourse on it already, and this probably isn’t the spot where we resolve it, but I’m relatively new to leftism and am interested in learning more.
Short(ish) version I have for preferring anarchism to Marxism:
My ultimate end goal is that everyone ascend Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and self actualize.
Self actualization requires freedom, agency, and control over things you care about. Pursuing self actualization is hard, though, and human brains want to be lazy.
I’m anti-capitalist, but a positive of (small-scale) capitalism is that it incentivizes individuals to think, “What should exist, but doesn’t? What can I do that others would like?” and then actually go do it. Our aim should be to encourage those types of actions, but with an incentive structure that doesn’t result in… this.
My concern is that a centralized state will result in folks voluntarily giving up their agency over stuff administered by the state, since it’s easier than feeling ownership of it. Over time, I worry this would would atrophy individuals’ agency and result in a kind of bystander effect, where folks look for the state to do things for them.
Lmao who’s the one person saying “I can excuse genocide, but I draw the line at pollution”