001Guy001 @ 001Guy001 @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

25

Joined

2 mo. ago

The issue is when it is done publicly, it is almost always done in bad faith to try and shame/put someone down and dismiss everything they said due to a mistake. If you want to teach someone you should send them a private message. Don't put them on blast in front of everyone. It shows a lack of empathy and depicts you as someone who wants to appear superior/better than them. Of course, there are ways to do it publicly but courteously, for example something like "just fyi, it's they're not their :) but anyway, I do agree with what you're saying [or] it was interesting to read your take on this"

We should be spending less on military and private sector, and more on public education, healthcare and social safety at large

This reminded me of this quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower (the US president who warned against the military-industrial complex)

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.

COINTELPRO never went away

I doubt it but I hope it somehow signifies a lasting slowing down of imperialism, of protecting the interests/profits of foreign corporations over local populations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War

Would he even arrive in hell? To my knowledge, God (at least of the old testament) never really condemned sexual assault/rape or hurting children (the latter is even encouraged - "spare the rod, spoil the child", the binding of Isaac, etc.). A rapist could marry his victim as a "punishment" (as long as she's single, otherwise if she was another man's property, both her and the rapist should die)

I mean, it's been a threat to people and democracy across the world since at least 1898

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

y’all need to stand up against racism and discrimination

I concur, I think they should push towards a more positive internet. Though I think they are a bit wary of doing it ever since the toxic backlash to this blog post

https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/

After they had gotten ahead and were in charge

Chiming in that I do agree with this specific sentiment. I think the issue with your overall statement is that it seems to imply that all boomers did this, while it only applies to the ones that got ahead. The system we've been living in for ages has been creating and rewarding cutthroat psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies - so it absolutely makes sense that the people that rose up in the economic ladder abused their position accordingly.

The psychopathic system we're living under deserves to be broken, sure, but a broken world would just mean additional suffering for the masses and will only serve the people at the top to get a tighter murderous grip on everything.

What's needed is a program that analyzes and pinpoints the conditions that create violent behavior and uproots them (for example, living in scarcity with no economic security and feeling marginalized, having no empathetic communal support system, etc.)

(cc: James Gilligan)

This is heartbreaking. The psychopaths at the top are actively sacrificing human lives. Cutting back programs like FEMA/disaster aid.

The population. This theoretical organization would need to be safe guarded enough that the people would believe they can be frank in expressing their wants without being afraid of repercussions from their regime or external forces. (so for example, if the people say they want socialism, with things like cooperatives and local gardens, then the people from the international organization would help them achieve that)

The problem is that the people at the top don't want informed citizens. There should be a citizenry(?) class through 3 years of high school, and there should be a sort of public access channel (including online) that disseminates all relevant political information (local and general).

Iranian people need to overwhelmingly decide to do it

The issue with this is that it's terrifying for the vast majority of people to try and resist a murderous autocratic regime, especially when you're not sure if enough other people in your vicinity will (successfully) have your back to make sure that you're not kidnapped and tortured or shot right in the street.

Ideally, we should have an international nonviolent organization that could arrive wherever needed to help a population get out of the shackles (with no strings attached)

They will not use their massive amount of money and resources to create a society that eliminates the conditions that generate criminal behavior (scarcity, no communal support systems, etc.), but they will do this shit.

Though not a single word, I've always loved picket fence

try this in userchrome:

#eme-notification-icon { display: none !important; }

This is correct, armies can do well in defending populations. The issue is that wars tend to cause more of what they are trying to solve/prevent. For example, Nazism rising out of the aftermath of WWI. Authoritarian/aggressive USSR/Russia rising out of the west's reaction to the socialistic revolution of 1917.

I think that, ideally, armies should be converted to be a positive force of cooperation (for example helping people all across the world with self-sufficient and sustainable local agriculture), instead of an aggressive/destructive one (of course, this can not realistically happen in the current way the world works, but I'm talking theoretically)

You are absolutely right, and I do believe that the vast majority of soldiers worldwide are well-intentioned and doing what they're doing for perceived right reasons. What I'm getting at is that, generally speaking, wars do not actually solve the underlying issues they are purportedly trying to fix. The Nazi ideas are still with us to this day. The North Korean regime is still a threat to its own people and others. Armies should be a deescalating force, building bridges between nations.

Also, they didn't even "die for you". That's a lie they've been sold - they died protecting corporate/imperialistic agendas. They died for the upper class.

edit: and it also implies that we are safer - but we are not. There's no true conflict resolution through military means. The conflicts are "maintained", simmering/enhancing until they boil over.