Does it matter? Anyone will draw whatever conclusion they want from written words.
Any post made represents a train of thought created in that moment, for that moment.
We like to overanalyze stuff and inferr suppositions, create entire lifetimes based on fragments of text. But more often than not, there is no hidden meaning, no greater link to map out. Though it's fun to imagine there is.
The online medium is fantasy. A separate dimension from reality. A glimpse into past moments that most of us rarely even think of while out there actually living. Shitposts, trolls, memes, bots, insights into the human psyche and so on, all mushed up together where you can't even tell the true from the false.
A simple truth is that everyone online is a lie. Whether spurred by anonymity or cowed by social expectations, the online persona is a default mask we craft for ourselves, perhaps even unknowingly.
Some say it's who they truly are, free or the debts and responsibilities of real life. But it's not completely true. Hiding this inner self is part of who we are, though we like to reject it. These posts, these thoughts are pieces of what we need to express, a lashing out at the norms that bound us we do not agree with. Yet they do not represent us, not fully.
Just as in a sudden moment of pain, we express the emotion through a verbal release of vulgarities, so too are these written declarations the release of that painful constriction society holds over our words and deeds.
Well, it might not be climate change. Plenty of volcanoes underwater and there has been an increase in newsworthy activity. (Needs someone who knows to confirm or deny actual increase in volcanic activity.)
Really? How many good men or women can one find in a country, willing and able to head out across borders to get involved into a war, solely to sacrifice themselves for the sake of saving others from genocide?
I'm not seeing armies heading out to save Palestine. Ukraine. Any of the African countries currently at war that i know so little about.
Simple truth is that not everyone agrees with this kind of selfless sacrifice.
The US had a small, but growing Nazism political party in its ranks before the war and the majority of those able to vote were against sending troops before Pearl Harbor happened. What do you think would have been the result had the acting US government sent troops into Europe without the approval of their citizens and without the shaming of the middling Nazis among them?
When forcing the issue, without making sure the ones opposing it won't suddenly strike at your back, you only send out more people to their deaths. And instead help the enemy achieve their goals more easily instead.
Nazist America was a real possibility at the time, not just a fantasy.
So yes, moderate, cautious and gradual isn't the evil you want it to be. It's just another route that considers the consequences of failure. And it's not without flaws, principal being the people involved.
Also, you may think I'm advocating for it, but that's just a side effect of my original point. Anything can be a force for either good or bad. Only focusing on the bad points and ignoring the good, vilifies it.
Tell me how that at its most basic meaning is different from what those you claim to hate are doing. Just because the subject of the hatred is different doesn't change the fact that the act of hatred is the same damn thing.
You don't like that things can be both bad and good? That's fine. But what you're pursuing is purity. Doesn't matter which side of the extreme you're looking for, it's still an extreme.
Should've gone with the Scottish architect sent from Australia in charge of the project, John Smith Murdoch, who was a member of the Masonic Order, a group which also makes use of the 6-pointed star.
Actually, by in general, I was thinking about people who live their lives in constant suffering and would like to have the option of a peaceful release.
Euthanasia is still taking a life, and I would prefer an alternative to that.
Was writing "in general" not enough to go beyond this particular instance?
After years of staring at a CRT monitor and increased sensitivity to light, I have developed a resting bitch face that acts out mostly on particularly sunny days.
I highly don't recommend it. I loved staring at the sky.
When death is unavoidable, the goal is to minimize the number of deaths. Taking into account the situation before, during and after can help create the better results.
If we just free someone without taking into account whether they'll be able to live afterwards is just patting ourselves on the back. Sure we can say we did the right thing, but without making certain they at least have a starting point, we might just be condemning them to desperation or crime.
But there were issues. The starving ones who were fed too much and too fast died, while because the train tracks and roads leading to these camps were destroyed, logistics was slow in giving them the help they needed.
So freedom wasn't as instant as you'd like to believe.
So bigotry and lies is now "don't focus on hatred"? Ok.
The following text is hyperbole to make a point and should be treated as such.
...
Let's say you're right. Let's hate on Rowling. Let's burn her books. Let's take her wealth and property. Let's send her to a special place for bigots, separate from the proper society. Let's do the same for the rest like her. I mean, who needs bigots in this society? They're poison. We'll be doing the world a favour...
The Nazis grew in power with a similar message about a certain kind of people. But yes, it's not Nazism. It's not the same. You're not really letting your hatred fester until it's all that is left. You can stop before that. You CAN stop. Because you're different. You're special. You're how the world should be. And anyone who thinks differently is beneath you.
...
Why are we here? Why is this topic important? Why is Lemmy important? Some people say it's a safe space, for those who believe the same things can agree with and encourage each other.
That's good and well for nice and positive ideas of growth and cooperation.
But when you start echoing anger, disgust, hatred and all other kinds of negative emotions, they get reinforced just as well as the positive side of things.
Look at this topic. Hate on Rowling. Hate on bigots. Hate on everything bad. And look at the number of up votes.
Is this really the type of safe space and reinforcement you want? If so, then I'm sorry, but that hyperbole above is the unavoidable path all those before you have fallen into.
Balance in all things is the path I try to walk, the good and the bad. Though I fail and stumble once in a while, I try to remember that no one is inherently good or bad. We simply are, each with faults of our own.
Yes, it should be done gradually.
What did the former slaves in the US have after they were freed? Nothing.
Food, clothing, housing are burdens we can't afford even now. Did you expect them to magically appear out of thin air once the slaves were freed?
You want everything to be done now, on the spot, a fair and just world for everyone. How nice of you. But do you have the resources? The infrastructure? The personnel?
You think that everyone will without a doubt respect everyone and everything without enough basic necessities to go around?
You asked for a moderate and cautious approach. I gave you an example of one.
If you draw from this more than what it is, then that's on you, not me.
The war in the US at least was fought due to a poor approach on the subject.
The UK, at the very least if anything, managed to end slavery peacefully on its soil.
Shore up the defenses, create logistics trains, be certain of the allies available, initiate battle when ready and after all diplomatic recourses have failed.
Have a standing replacement framework, compensate losses, ratify laws to support equal rights in its entirety, reduce support of transgressors in public eyes over time. There were few slave owners. Turning the masses against them wouldn't have been difficult.
Prepare alternative replacement in case of refusal, then support unionizing while giving subsidies to encourage participation.
Ideally, it's supposed to advance slowly while keeping everyone relatively happy and stable.
A government is supposed to consider all of its citizens and that means taking into consideration the consequences of failure, while also planning how to remedy them.
I have no doubt that Rowling's story isn't original. There are many authors better than her, yet less popular. The Harry Potter story is a love-hate thing for most of its fans and its success is a matter opportunity i'd guess.
But it is part of childhood for many and that alone makes it important enough to keep the better parts of it close to heart.
I'll probably get to read Earthsea eventually, I just need to find the time to invest in it properly.
That's the thing though, anyone can twist words to fit one's view. So why accept their vilification? Why jump into that pot of vitriol and say "yes, this is how it has to be"?
Does it matter? Anyone will draw whatever conclusion they want from written words.
Any post made represents a train of thought created in that moment, for that moment.
We like to overanalyze stuff and inferr suppositions, create entire lifetimes based on fragments of text. But more often than not, there is no hidden meaning, no greater link to map out. Though it's fun to imagine there is.
The online medium is fantasy. A separate dimension from reality. A glimpse into past moments that most of us rarely even think of while out there actually living. Shitposts, trolls, memes, bots, insights into the human psyche and so on, all mushed up together where you can't even tell the true from the false.
A simple truth is that everyone online is a lie. Whether spurred by anonymity or cowed by social expectations, the online persona is a default mask we craft for ourselves, perhaps even unknowingly.
Some say it's who they truly are, free or the debts and responsibilities of real life. But it's not completely true. Hiding this inner self is part of who we are, though we like to reject it. These posts, these thoughts are pieces of what we need to express, a lashing out at the norms that bound us we do not agree with. Yet they do not represent us, not fully.
Just as in a sudden moment of pain, we express the emotion through a verbal release of vulgarities, so too are these written declarations the release of that painful constriction society holds over our words and deeds.
....
TL;DR: Always.