Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them] @ Saeculum @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

65

Joined

2 yr. ago

If I had come about through the unwilling merger of two people, and my death could restore those people, it's probably ethical to kill me to make it happen.

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to call the two component people dead either. Death is a not a particularly well defined term, but we don't tend to apply it to people who might get better.

Why don't we just harvest your organs and give them to people we deem more useful, ya know?

The knowledge that you live in a society where you could be legally killed at any point for the greater good, and the resultant fear and uncertainty probably would cause more harm overall than doing so could actually alleviate.

One for one, sure. One for two? I can see the argument.

How?

I love the game and completely agree. Apparently, there was a complete rework of the main narrative somewhere in development, with the original idea not including the emperor at all, but instead having a character called daisy, who you'd have a number of dialogues with throughout the game in a dream sequence at the bank of a river.

Daisy being the representation of the tadpole, she'd try to convince you to stay down by the river with her, and the final decision of the game would be whether or not to give in.

Not sure how accurate what I've read is, but I like that idea better.

My guess is Canada

or they live under a secular, democratic Palestinian state from the river to the sea where both the Jewish and Arab population live as equals.

I don't see the people who voted in and fully supported:

the Zionist settler-colonialist project and it's ambitions, the full extermination of the Palestinian population.

Participating in a secular democratic Palestinian state in good faith. I also don't see the religious and nationalist zealots that make up the current government and its core supporters agreeing to leave.

but they are all in a United Front against the Zionist regime.

United fronts don't tend to outlive the enemy they are united against.

I also don't understand what the your alternative is? Palestine is unstable as fuck under two states. so what are you proposing?

I don't see how a single state including all of these groups, under a secular democratic government can come into existence.

The sort of societal change necessary would require tactics similar to revolutionary China or Russia, full wealth redistribution, some form of widespread re-education and some form of vanguardist government to oversee the transition. The majority of people in Palestine would not support those measures, and neither would the surrounding powers.

I really hate people who speculate and criticize without offering any actual implementable plans.

My lack of ability to think of a solution to the problem does not stop me from seeing the issues with the ones that are proposed. (Or rather skipped past in most cases.) We all, I would hope, want to see an equal, democratic and secular Palestine from the river to the sea, but how does that happen?

The 90s saw some 20% less violent deaths during the troubles than the 80s did, though it's true that the 70s were the worst period.

The years of lead weren't bloodless, but relatively few people died even compared to the troubles, let alone something like Chechnya

The uprisings were relatively bloodless though. The troubles continued well into the 90s so it's not really point towards either side. Russia had an attempted coup in the early 90s.

The 90s were comparably much more sanguine.

I really don't think they were.

One Palestine is not a recipe for a stable state imo. You can deport the settlers back to their countries of origin, at least the European ones, but that still leaves a sizable contingent, something like two million IIRC people/descendents of people who migrated/were forced out of the neighbouring Arab states.

You have the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, a great number of whom have, at least to some degree, been complicit in the oppression of those in Gaza and the west bank. On top of that, they are considerably more materially wealthy and educated. Wealth redistribution could fix this, but would create resentment. Not doing so would create resentment on the other side.

You have a rift between the secular and non-secular populations, significant differences in beliefs and politics between the west bank and Gaza, you have secular socialists and zealous theocrats, all militarised (by necessity and justly, but militarised nonetheless).

A two state or three state solution is not just, but even with Israel destroyed, could a one-palestine survive even briefly?

I was more referring to prosperity when mentioning Russia and Ukraine. The decrease in living standards, and massive increase in alcoholism and deaths of dispair hardly paints a prosperous picture.

Unless I'm forgetting some especially disastrous conflict in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe, I don't think you could argue that the 90s were more peaceful than either.

peaceful and prosperous

Unless you're Russian, Ukrainian, Albanian or anywhere in or around Yugoslavia.

Outdoor cats are destructive to the ecosystem, keeping a pet is the exploitation of an animal and is therefore not vegan, and forcing a vegan diet on an obligate carnivore is , depending on how you do it, either pointless or animal abuse.

While I provide no further argument or justification for these points, understand that I am unchallengably correct as I am the one true Marxist.

Bey-once

Nature is just a process of change. There is no improvement or deterioration, and it's not building towards some final goal or state.

Similar insects would quickly fill the niche.

The internet outside of hexbear is generally hostile to many of our views, so it's not like we can easily go elsewhere.

I'm mentally old and out of touch with the kids, there are new emojis all the time and I have no idea what any of them mean. I spent all this time learning English and now half of the things people post are some sort of picture puzzle I lack the context to understand and have to guess the meaning of.

If they'd endured as independent groups into the 21st century without being colonised by Europeans, as the map shows, they would almost certainly have developed defined borders.

The Aztec empire being the dominant force on the continent could be a very unfortunate situation for everyone living there.

They were so unpopular with every surrounding nation (because of all the murdering and kidnapping and human sacrificing) that when the Spanish showed up, the vast vast majority of the soldiers that fought against the Aztecs were from the local peoples.

I know undervolting can make some electronics, including lightbulbs last longer, but I don't know if that would countermand the extra wear from the changing voltage.