kwomp2 @ kwomp2 @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

154

Joined

1 yr. ago

Awesome comment. Thank you! This is where something starts to become visible: the weird indirect physical and psychological violence of liberal ideology.

It's base claim is: If everyone, as a single enlighted decent individual agent, would just play by the rules (fair markets), everything would be at it's best. All of them shall thrive.

Now all those good christians go through life working their ass of, actually trying to be "a good person", but after decades they have to painfully find out: It doesn't work out. Most of them get more stressed, poorer, there's ecological destruction, war and so on. Almost no one get's to thrive.

As you pointed out, finding out about capitalism and (neccessarilly collectively) paving a way to more rational production and fairer distribution, is difficult. You could almost say it's practically and ideologically out of reach. You know, because your freedoms depend on liberal individualism.

They end up with two options: 1. Look for an outside menace to the otherwise funtional market game (immigrants, jews, or heck why not trans people) 2. Get more of the same: more privatizarion, less social welfare etc.

They cling ever harder to a political decision, the more it harms them. This is brutal and sad af imo.

Real agency is possible, just not the individualist kind liberalism is successfully promising them in their despair of heteronomy.

Cringe is life.

You're welcome. Well kudos to them anyways I guess. Some hinterlands outeight ban gender equality language so I'll them in as progressive :3

You can just replace / with *, in pronouns as well: Seine * ihre, Kolleg * innen, jede * r.

[Edit: without spaces inbetween, but otherwise things become italic in here]

This way you are the surest, since everybody is included every time.

I really have no clue where your teacher got this mixing thing from. But all this is work in progress. Societies and languages have to transform and that doesn't need to be a linear process. Imo it's even better if it isn't, because exploration and multiperspectivity aren't very linear by nature and irritation and changes make for good opportunities to think and discuss.

For example sometimes I like saying just one gender, if it makes for good, well placed irritation.

*Die Stadt sollte designierte Fahrradstraßen haben, damit Fahrradfahren auch ohne Helm hinreichend sicher ist.

I don't know where you got this from or if you just invented it, but I have never heard/seen anyone mix * and /.

People interested in gender neutral language used / before the idea of more than two genders came up. Whoever wanted to specifically include non-binary people started using _ or *.

Also it makes little sense imo to include nb's in the subject of a sentence to go back to binary scheme in the pronouns..

Thanks y'all

Sounds amazing. What is the aproximate cost for all the parts needed?

I feel everything you say. We need radical critique, grab things by their roots, stop dancing around.

But thinking, and I guess platon (as a pro philosopher) didn't cover that, is mostly dialectical with doing, with everyday social practice. IRL they don't seperate as the cognitivist and voluntaristic understanding of enligthment implies.

I think it's still good to go vote to keep the worst from happening and to improve the circumstances for emancipatory struggle.

But I also think voting is one of the lesser important levers, compared to activism, organizing, unions and so on.

Both, giving up using levers and cosplaying trying by just voting for a shitty neoliberal mess and watch them making people frustrated enough to vote for trumpf and not doing anything else are irresponsible at the end of the day

Makes me 'member these informative graphics on 4chan ~2008 that categorized users into oldfags, newfags and cancer. Anyone else 'member?

You're a writer too. If you so far decided to not get organized, you and your fellow writers are just copying what you read from others.

I wonder what those people claim they keep politics and science seperated. You know, because if you get a lab coat you're immune

I think of it like this:

Lacking fundamental critique of the political economy, they believe the liberal narrative of the market and democratic institutions would bring about a fair or good economy.

Either you stop believing that, wich comes with quite a reorientation towards your own society, history and biography with significant social consequences ("what are you, a socialist now?) and mental stress (radical opposition is not exactly calming).

...or you assume there is something disturbing your otherwise functioning order and ideology from the outside. Damn those immigrants, if it it wasn't for them there would be more jobs, higher wages, less crime and I'd finally get all that trickle down.

This latter is the energetically more efficient choice for each individual, and importantly, this really is true - as long as there is no collective perspective of systemic change, wich of course in turn only materializes when people make their bet for the possible, not the actual.

This perspective doesn't really exist atm, it's not in sight and nobody talks about it. This is the result of anticommunism and a massive failure of the left.

We need to be couragous and make room for utopian thought while giving opportunities to experience and try solidaric socialization. This makes not being idiot a convincing alternative.

Good impulse to read theory, but 150y/o theory is not where I'd advice people to start. At least the german originals of what you recomend there are fairly hard to read. Plus they lack the development of marxist theory that happened since then. For example Gramscis thoughts are so freakin important for marxism to be applicable to this society being far more diverse than good'ol working class in the factory vs. Monopoly man capitalists. I'm sure there is updated marxism and introductions available in english. (Dunno, Harvey maybe? Mayo?)

Also "how to conduct yourself as a leftist" sound strict af and kinda deterministic.

"Strawman" - and then you just go with "vegans"... so all? Most? Some? Or maybe just the tiniest percentage? I think you understand for wich ones my argument applies and how "strawman" doesn't, cause numbers. You know, if you pay attention..

Ok lets cut the rhetorics, I was trying to be sincere. I think you might wanna pay some more of that attention (omg sry I stop now) to "dialectic". This does explicitly not mean you can turn the thing around and solely look at the other side.

So of course no change ever happens if all those one persons don't do anything. But they will only change history if they change the underlying structures. To do so, they have to overcome their individualistic constriction and reach collective agency.

You gotta organize. The market won't do, since it is THE form of organization that makes everyone a single player. Both, in their acting and in their consciousness.

This statement (about everyone single personal effort) only becomes meaningful when you take into consideration why people don't. If you do, you will encounter the dialectics of structure and "personal choice" and how complicated history is and how it is not at all about "everybody make a small change in their life".

The liberal feverdream of individual solutions for structural problems is bound to end up in "I buy good groceries".

And, eventhough veganism is a good thing to do, this is why I'm personally so annoyed by vegan communities.

I dont know if reducing your personal sin count or whatever is a substitute for radical critique and political action, or an add-on, so I didn't downvote. But maybe it explains some of it.

No great wisdom either, but my main thought about this is that games are designed to keep your dopamine coming (maybe overly nature scientific way of saying: they are exciting, rewarding).

Other activities can do that to, but some are rewarding in a more subtle way or more on a long term. Like, not "ringring yOu fOuNd DIAMOND!!". So in comparison with games they might not trigger your motivation (dopamin?) as quickly.

On the other hand they are probably better at making you feel more general connectedness, belonging, sense, emotional diversity, etc.

So my advice (wich I struggle alot to follow myself) is: Avoid or limit the other dopamine traps like random scrolling and give yourself and the not-designed- for-dopamine-optimization-world some time, some patient goodwill. This might make that good ol' world shine bright enough to not get bored all the time.

Dude, get organized

Turns out cringe was life all along