Nah but a fresh tick bite. This means I’m from the future

You should also not let war dehumanize you. That’s part of the fight against war

And yes putin bad

Dewindowed

Lots of points for gryffindor

Whats going on ITT?

You fluffin find out where that insecurity comes from and help them build themselves up.

Constructive and empathic (self)critique is how transformation works

This is not how you strenghthen solidarity. In case anyone ever gave you warmth when you were struggling to be a nice person: ponder that situation :)

Haha yeah I was about to say, this is a masterpiece of

*newspaper jumping on the absolutely least significant aspect of smth, just, and really for no other fucking reason, because it activates low stakes unambiguous morals

*everyone: preaching low stakes morals

Wel played everyone, you’ve won the simulator. Turns out you do have a message, you do tell the truth

100k drones a month?!

This is a surprisingly hight number :o. Then again saying this already feels stupid since the answer is probaby just industrial warfare or smth.

Even though this is true for like 90% of my thinking (that I can see when I try), so far I’m concinced this ist because I am a predominantly language-and-normal-grammar-rules thinker.

There are people that mostly think via associations of words that don’t have to be formulated/ cast into grammar.

And then there supposedly people mainly thinking in pictures or smth, without words.

Anyways for some people rubber duck mode reoresents a change in thinking method, I think

Okay I see we have radically different understandings of how political power dynamics work and what “free will” and “democratic societies” are. This difference is probably most condensed in the concept of subjectivity, which I tried to open up for investigation with the bunch of questions in my earlier comment.

I think we can’t solve this here and now, so I’m gonna leave it at what I think is central.

Individual political agency is always conditioned by ideological and praxeologically powerful structures.

In russia they are easy to see (you get killed). In “the west” they are more more subtle (people contrafactually imagine beeing independent subjects whereas they grow into disciplined subjectivity).

In both, the vast majority does not have the needed understanding of their political environment and themselfes in it, or the power to substabtially change it. The latter depend on the former and is out of reach, as long as subjectivity is imagined as individual, as they did in those ugly comments above.

I wanna emphasize I respect this conversation, you and our difference but its just too much conceptual material to handle here. I hope it doesnt appear arrogant to name the authors that seem to me the most cebtral to these concepts: they would be Foucault and Gramsci, in case you are motivated to get into it, wich I would freakin double tip my fedora for

Everybody carries responsibility. Possibillity is a complex issue that depends on collective action.

If you go about “enforcing political change” in russia right now, you get jailed or “windowed”, as many recent examples showed.

This does not make responsibility disappear, but it immensly changes the gauge for judging individual fault.

Also I see a massive double standard here. Because almost no matter where you live (I guess it’s somewhere in the “global north”, one of the centers of economic-political power), if you are not actively organizing resistance against the neoliberal program that is hegemonial and widely enforced, you are responsible for the massive poverty in and outside of your country and the geopolitical intability that is closely and causaly connected to said program.

The dehuminization of “let those fuckers be depressed because their lives are destroyed by oppressive politics” shoul consequently also be aplied to all the anxious, stressed and depressed people in the “first world countries”.

Or, how about we don’t dehumanize anyone…

Well both of your are just repeating the same thing again. The concept of the autonomous subject, that has been put in our minds (among others by the standard modern film, in which a manly superhero uses his limitless commitment to overcome everything impossible) is a lie.

What we can decide and do is heavily conditioned by the social world (shouldn’t come as a surpise for a social species).

I just gave you a bunch of ways you can use to question that ideal of “if you just want it enough, you can do anything”.

Yet all you come up with is plein repetition of a contrafactual concept

So you identify yourself with your government as you identify them with theirs?

Would you get organized and face the government publicly if you were in russia rn?

Do you take responsibility for your society, trying your best to keep it from descending into authoritarianism?

Because if not, it’s kinda weird to dehumanize everyday normal russian people like with that meme in the face of their sitchu

The fight for hegemony is always a cultural one. Cultural workers positioning themselves in political conflicts, IS struggle for ethical-moral leadership. Here society fights out what interpretation of the social world is leading, and thus on the long run, which political alliance will be able to lead society.

Someone discovered the dialectic of individual and society

Oh god please no, please don’t escalate this war by adding the killer kind of weapons to it

I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.

In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.

This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.

Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.

Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point. Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.

That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.

Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.

The magic about collective action is that the everyday-normal-coorperation of humans comes up with solutions for everyone. The pointer to individual decision-making in lack of collective action thus doesn’t work as a measure of how serious people are.

Also seen in episodes like

“Oh, you are wearing shoes made under unfair conditions?!”

And

“Oh there is fossil fuel in your energy consumption?”

Or

“Oh if you like democracy so much, why do you exist in a not-so-democratic-country?”

Regarding how rushed international policy-making for the environment and against profitability is not at all a problem has never been and won’t be anytime soone, that “scepticism” seems to be the product of “looking for superiority” here, imho

1. Tiniest fraction of single use plastic
2. Could be recycled or reused/resterilized
3. What flavour of skepticism are you trying to perform rn?