adderaline @ ondoyant @beehaw.org

recovering hermit, queer and anarchist of some variety, trying to be a good

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

129

Joined

2 yr. ago

"killing civilians is always reprehensible" as a moral statement has nothing to do with the mechanics of conflict. i'm telling you what i believe. giving room for acceptable civilian casualties in a moral framework provides a ready made justification for bad actors, that so long as they present a situation as looking enough like the acceptable kind of civilian casualty then its fine that an innocent person was killed.

i am taking issue with the rhetoric of acceptable casualties. no. there are only casualties, and they are all horrific. rhetoric that is not an explicit condemnation of war can be used as a justification for it.

the scenario you're imagining doesn't exist. this isn't a rock paper scissors thing, where Israel either shoots through hostages to kill insurgents or dies themselves. if Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, they aren't attacking Israel, they're hiding. if they're attacking Israel, they aren't in a crowd of Palestinian civilians. the IDF does not need to have a shootout with civilians in the crossfire to protect its people. the IDF does not need to bomb civilian residences to wage war against an insurgency.

you are so willing to conflate the two, assume that Israel must kill or be killed themselves. that is a fucking falsehood. there is so fucking much a military force can do to defend against attack that doesn't involve shelling apartment buildings, shooting into crowds, and otherwise being monsters.

all civilian casualties are inadmissible. its not wrong, its a moral imperative, and one that the state of Israel is blatantly disregarding. the framing that "okay, these civilian causalities are okay" is fucking monstrous, and gives a ready made excuse for Israel to escalate violence in Gaza.

that frankly isn't the situation that we're dealing with. the idea that israel either has to let Hamas operate unchallenged or kill civilians is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works, and giving the IDF blanket permission to kill civilians if it also hurts Hamas is fucking monstrous. you suck.

so if hamas is exploiting civilians for their own protection, they should kill their victims too? cool dude. you're totally not justifying killing civilians! it's not technically a war crime, so its fine! fuck. off.

Antifa and "the Black Bloc" are not organizations that disrupt protests, they are decentralized left-wing political strategies that do quite a bit of organizing for protest movements. they are just protesters, and the vast majority of the people who self-identify as antifa demonstrably don't do violence. but again, right wing groups designate any kind of left-leaning of liberal protest action as "antifa", so the actual utility of opposing "antifa" is kind of dubious to me. the entire BLM protest was called antifa by the right, despite the protest on average being quite peaceful.

this is such a weird thing to say. fascism is all about authoritarian shit, it is defined by ultranationalism, racism, bigotry, and centralized control, not by "virtue signaling", a phrase more common in right-wing spaces than anywhere else. we can quibble all we want about the left, but demonstrably, who is limiting the freedoms of minority groups, which states are attempting to disenfranchise voters, who has actual real ass nazi's hanging at their parties? it isn't the left, or whatever you think the left is.

like, don't get me wrong, there are very many ways a left wing government can demonstrably get authoritarian, but the term "fascism" is defined by being far-right on the political scale. i would just generally suggest reading some stuff about fascism, because you don't seem to be very well informed on what scholarship says about the ideology at large.

i think that's a bit of an alarming stance, to be honest. authoritarians have a pretty long history of characterizing protest movements as looting and rioting, characterizing protestors as "outside agitators", and other nonsense as a way to justify violent oppression, and the vast majority of the time for the vast majority of participants it really isn't the case.

maybe there's some people who would say that (are these like twitter guys or something?), but in the vast majority of cases the actual objection to "antifa smashing up your city" was "no, actually, the amount of smashing being done is much less than what right-wing media sources are saying, "antifa" is often broadly applied to the protest movement in general, and police officers coming in with tear gas and rubber bullets often leads to escalating violence from protesters in response."

But, I suppose it is the actual biological parts that are different, which I was thinking about.

one thing i think is important to recognize is that, while gender is socially constructed, so is sex to some extent. we have a number of features we generally say are "male" or "female" characteristics, including genitalia, but keep in mind that there are around 1-2% of the population that are born intersex. the way we determine sex assigned at birth is almost always through an inspection of genitalia, but for some people that isn't conclusive.

in a lot of places, doctors will attempt "fix" these natural variations, deciding for the child which category they belong in. there is enough variation from "male" and "female" characteristics, and enough people with traits from both categories, that the categories themselves can't really be said to have a purely biological origin, even if statistically they are highly correlated.

Am I right in thinking the main issues is that we have created a society in which sex and gender were separated and defined so distinctly, that for transexual individuals, there just is no ‘correct’ option available to them?

that's very much part of the problem. lots of trans people really don't fit neatly into the boxes doctors currently expect of them, especially once they've gone on hormones, and sharply delineating sex categories like doctors do measurably leads to less positive health outcomes for trans people. the intersex population is also affected by this kind of marginalization.

the reality is that the health of a person has a lot more to do with their specific traits than it does with the collection of traits a sex category expects them to have, which is in reality composed of a cluster of related physical, cognitive, and social traits that can vary independently of one another, and affect our health in specific ways. assuming any of these traits are one way simply because of how somebody's genitals are supposed to be is almost always going to be more wrong than just allowing people to describe and denote their personal experience as they see fit. checking M or F on a box is, unfortunately, not really the same as just saying you have a penis or a vagina. it implies a lot more than that, even if your personal experience does not align with that implication.

i don't know why they need to be mutually exclusive. individuals in communities with other individuals are what comprise a system. its all built from people.

that's far from what the study says. there is no research on the effects of plastic chemicals in human beings cited in the study, the vast majority of the data is in rats and mice. saying that its responsible for trans people requires some very large leaps of logic that aren't supported by the data or the conclusion of the study.

we have a great deal of anthropological evidence that other cultures conceive of sex and gender in wildly differing ways, both through history and in the modern era. gender identity is a complex social and cultural phenomenon, not some essential trait of the human body with a basis in endocrine function. maybe i'm just sensitive to this shit, but i can't see somebody making a claim like this without just fundamentally misunderstanding what being trans is.

ugh. i barely want to respond to this, but "deserve" in this context is wild. substance abuse is a medical condition, not a moral failing. its disproportionately affects people who are poor, mentally ill, or otherwise disadvantaged, and many unhoused people start doing drugs while on the street, because if fucking sucks to be living on the street.

the actual utility of "locking people up" as a response to drug abuse is not positive. prisons are miserable places, and people often aren't given the kind of care they need to get clean and stay clean, and relapse when they get out, because their circumstances haven't improved. as it turns out, locking people in a cage for years does little to address the underlying issues that cause substance abuse. nobody "deserves" prison. its ineffective generally, and particularly ineffective at actually getting people off of drugs. all it does is punish people who are suffering.

uh huh. because our current system has definitely demonstrated that shitty companies fail, right? i don't know how you can look at the landscape of modern corporations and come away with the thought that capitalism has in any way increased our freedom to choose, or that that really important part actually in practice weeds out shitty business practices in any way.

what companies do you like? are any of them the large multinational corporations swallowing up every speck of available market share and spiraling us towards climate apocalypse? if so, you're wrong.

food insecurity is a huge problem in many places today, including in some of the wealthiest countries on the world. there aren't too many communist regimes around to blame for it anymore.

how are being a capitalist and despising the direct product of capitalism compatible lol?

i don't know what to tell you man. not everybody who develops open source projects for a living does it in their free time. for a lot of projects, particularly the big ones, there is full time development staff.

but i'm sorry, the thing you're describing, music performance being out of reach for everybody but the rich? uhh... that is how things are right now. lots of musicians are struggling to afford touring, even the very wealthy ones, and tours often don't do much more than break even. its gotten worse in recent years, too, as large corporations monopolize venue spaces and independent artists are pushed further and further into the margins. musicians have been talking about how much the live-music industry is fucked for a long time. its almost like the problems you're imagining would occur under a different system are exactly how it works under this one.

Call me cynical, but good things don’t last if we even get them at all.

i am gonna call you cynical, at least a little bit. the reality is, we are today far closer to the kind of utopia i'm describing than in any other point in human history. access to knowledge has improved massively in only the span of a couple of decades, and even with how much things suck right now, its still like the best time to be alive. most of human history has been pretty miserable for most people.

climate change spooks me real bad, and i have felt the way you do. i have never lived in a country where we had the things you're describing you have lost. it doesn't matter. it doesn't even matter if we are going to kill the planet and everything's gonna die and things will just get worse and worse.

the reality is, our bodies have less than a hundred years, maybe even significantly less, before we become nothing, and in the long run, humanity and everything we've ever created will also become nothing. with that perspective, at least for me, the problem of what to do about the various injustices of the modern world becomes fairly simple. imma do what i can until i'm dead in the ground, then i won't care if we're in an anarcho-communist solar punk utopia or a nuclear wasteland.

its not necessarily common, but its weird to make this kind of point while using a platform that works by the exact principles i'm describing lol. open source projects are very frequently built from community support and public funding alone, and the people building them seem to be fine with their jobs.