Emeryael

1

Emeryael wrote

I've long noticed that. There's a shitton of overlap between the MRA and Neo-Nazis. Scratch any MRA and it isn't long before you find someone longing for the days when certain folk weren't allowed on golf courses. It seems true of authoritarians in general. If you believe that only certain people qualify as fully human and deserve to be in power, then of course, the certain people will be the ones that look a lot like you.

3

Emeryael wrote (edited )

Of course, if you point out the reality of inheritance, she'd just stick her fingers in her ears and be all "La-La-La! Can't hear you!" People like her have to believe that they are the Ayn Rand Protagonist Ubermensch who earned everything by virtue of being so much more evolved than everyone else. If they admitted they had A LOT of lucky breaks, if they admitted their wealth was inherited and built on the blood and toil of others, they wouldn't be able to function.

It's a reoccurring meme. If asked about the causes of poverty, the right generally goes on and on about personal responsibilities and poor work ethic. There is so much wrong in that meme, but if we were to follow it to its logical extension, then that would mean that the Rich are super-moral beings who never imbibe mind-altering substances and work so hard that a Mexican Day Laborer looks like a lazy slug in comparison.

Obviously though, that is not true. Rich people are as human and as prone to screw-ups as everyone else. The trouble is, when a poor person screws up, the effects of their screw-up is mostly confined to friends and family or people who live in their general area, with little, if any, effects being felt by those higher up on the societal pyramid. Since we live in an unbelievably punitive society, the poor person who screws up, will face massive consequences for it.

The same cannot be said of Rich people who have greater access to power and resources, which enable them to screw up on a societal level, while mostly escaping the consequences of their actions. Money buys a lot of things, including escape hatches and golden parachutes. They'll always be able to skip town and leave everyone else to clean up their messes.

I disagree with GK Chesterton's label of anarchist, but for the most part, this quote of his is correct. The Poor have objected to being governed badly, but the Rich have always objected to being governed at all.

6

Emeryael wrote

So much of it is because, for them, the tide is turning. For centuries, white men were the central demographic society catered to and orbited around, but PoC and women have been pushing back, saying, "We are people too and we deserve the rights afforded to us as human beings and citizens." Truth is, despite the setbacks, we continue to gain more and more ground. The Right is a reactionary group and reactionary groups, while pains in the asses, usually don't have much strength behind them. For all their bluster, challenge them and they fold like a house of cards on a water bed. A movement needs a central thesis and you can only get so far with, "I hate everything the other side hates."

The mindset of so many of the white dudes joining fascist groups, is akin to that of a thoroughly-spoiled toddler. For many years, the toddler has always had access to all the best toys, while everyone else was made to play with either old and broken ones or ones that the toddler didn't want. Now, the toddler is being made to share, and in response, it's throwing a screaming fit, because as far as he's concerned, he earned those toys and they belong to him and he shouldn't have to share with anyone. Naturally, they will gravitate towards groups who constantly stroke their egos, tell them about how they are most definitely the alphas of society, who are so much more evolved than all those lesser groups and therefore, they deserve more.

However scary they may be, ultimately, they are losing and they will lose. We just have to stand strong and keep pushing back, doing what we can to protect those who need it.

9

Emeryael wrote

As many have said, the expression isn't "Oh it's just a few bad apples. There's nothing to worry about." The expression is "A few bad apples spoil the bunch."

By refusing to disavow shitty cops, by continuing to work aside them with no complaints, even so-called good cops are still tacitly supporting a profoundly racist society.

2

Emeryael wrote

It's about the size of it. Everyone is always positive we'll all riot and loot without cops, but we didn't have them for the majority of our history and managed to resolve affairs without them. Humans are generally wired for altruism and empathy; we want to take care of each other and help each other out. We don't need a State to tell us to do these things.

3

Emeryael wrote

And of course, if you can't work, or if your circumstances make it so you can only do menial, low-paying work, be prepared to have to spend nearly all your time asserting your value as a person, saying that you do matter and you are not just a burden who just leeches off a society.

2

Emeryael wrote

As the NY Times points out, the university had to postpone a talk with an anthropologist, Anna Tsing, because of Milo's shit. I know little about the field of anthropology or about Ms. Tsing, but she probably wouldn't have racked up such high security costs AND she probably would have had worthwhile knowledge and wisdom to share with the campus. Because seriously, fuck Milo.

2

Emeryael wrote (edited )

I like this cartoon for that reason. Click Here It so illustrates those who are all "We must be Reasonable" argument. Remember, you're always supposed to remain calm and well-mannered, even if people are literally being killed for their beliefs/skin color/orientation/ or whatever the Right hates now. No matter what happens, you must be so saintly as to make Jesus jealous.

Edited Out of Thanks to Sudo for showing me how to do links here. :)

9

Emeryael wrote

A lot of things in life are dangerous. The only time you're completely safe, is when you are dead. In any case, there are causes worth dying for and Stopping Nazis is one of them.

This quote has been credited to Sophie Scholl. I've heard it's actually up for debate whether or not she said it, but it is a damn fine quote nonetheless, so I'll post it.

"The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'survive.' The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn."

3

Emeryael wrote

It's probably a repeat of that age-old mindset among the Right, where it's not enough for them to have everything if they can't have the tears of losers as well. Hence why even though they control all three branches of government, can buy and sell the world ten times over, they constantly whine about how they are being persecuted by all those [Insert Scapegoat Here], what with their constant demands to be able to exercise their rights as citizens and human beings. Yeah, the Right is actually killing people, with one of them going so far as to run someone over for disagreeing with them, but all those mean words really hurt their feelings and that's totally equivalent to actual persecution, right?

3

Emeryael wrote (edited )

Ugh...I could point out that monarch butterflies migrate to Mexico every year for the winter and are able to reach their destination, even though it's their first trip, proving that they aren't rock-stupid. Whereas I, a human, still struggle to navigate Tulsa, OK without a GPS, no matter how many times I've been there. So by that logic, the monarch butterflies are smarter than me.

I suppose I could keep up the argument--point out that you likely don't have much intimate knowledge of your environment, cannot name any of the plants, birds, trees, or animals living there--but it feels like a futile effort. No point in arguing if you're going to just keep moving the goalposts.

It feels reminiscent of the kind of logic seen in a Supreme Court decision made by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1823 where he said that the Cherokees had certain rights to their land by dint of occupancy, but the Europeans had greater rights owing to their discovery of the land. And of course, Marshall never bothered to explain how the Indians could occupy their land without discovering it.

No matter how many examples I point out, attesting to the intelligence of living beings, you'll change the rules and explain how that's not really intelligent, because you believe that human beings are the only ones who have any kind of interior life at all. I could talk about how many different animals like corvids, have demonstrated the ability to use tools, and Elephants have been shown burying their dead, but again, you'll find some way of weaseling out of it. Though "weaseling" is probably the wrong word; even weasels have some limits, just like most predators.

It is true that life isn't like a Disney cartoon where all the animals hold hands and sing, but at the same time, even the biggest, fiercest predator has its natural limits. If a tiger has recently eaten, you could parade the most succulent and juicy game right in front of him/her and the tiger will just ignore it. Like many predators, tigers may kill each other in territorial and mating battles, but they don't prowl around trying to kill every tiger in existence.

But unfortunately, a good chunk of humanity doesn't understand the basic idea that they are a part of the ecosystem and that anything that affects one part of the ecosystem, will eventually affect them. We are not outside the natural world and its creatures; we are emeshed in the great cycle of life and death with them. To believe otherwise, leads to a toxic mess that endangers everyone, human, plant, and animal life alike.

3

Emeryael wrote

Even if they measure the same things, doesn't mean they see the same things. They might see in different spectra, they might have taste and smell adapted to different chemicals, and above all the qualia produced by those sensory organs might be completely different.

So if anything or anyone thinks or perceives things different from you, you see them as slaves who exist solely for you and if you can't see any perceived benefit, they deserve to die? Good to know.

No reason to believe this is true, except for predatory animals that need to know the land to hunt and territorial animals that need to know the land so they can know what part they own.

So prey or herbivores don't need to know where to find water or where to find the plants they like to eat or need to eat to survive. They don't need to know the best place/materials to build a den. They also don't need to know how to spot a predator and how to outwit a predator and stay alive. So how exactly has any of them managed to stay alive? You'll probably say something idiotic like "Strength in numbers," but strength in numbers doesn't help you much if not a single member of your species has any basic level of intelligence whatsoever.

So it's safe to say that in your vision of the world, all prey animals are dead, which begs the question: so what are the predators eating? I suppose they could feast on each other, but there's an obvious flaw in that strategy.

5

Emeryael wrote

Stating that everything on the planet is a failure because it hasn't evolved to our level is like saying that anarchism doesn't work because no anarchist territory has ever lasted for more than a few years. You once again fail to take into consideration the dimensions of time and evolution--both natural and of the artificial kind--and their great effect on our entire existance.

Also, it ignores the reality that in nature, there's strength in diversity. If the planet was made up entirely of humans, nothing would work.

Also, can you really call all other life on this planet unintelligent, given that unlike us, they are aware of their place in the ecosystem and have managed to live without irrevocably poisoning their home for millions of years?

Maybe humans should be regarded as unintelligent, given that a good chunk believe that they are separate from nature, that they can poison and pillage the ecosystem and they won't have to deal with the consequences. Also, a good chunk continue to believe in constant expansion/production, because they cannot grasp the basic idea that if you keep constantly consuming, eventually there will be nothing left.

It's a simple idea: gobble down every piece of chocolate cake within arms' reach and you'll eventually run out of chocolate cake. Yet we keep having to repeatedly explain this over and over to some idiot who magically believes some new advance will fix all the problems caused by all the previous advances and will not, in itself, create or aggravate already existing problems.

The prims also understand that humans had managed to live sustainably and in harmony with one another and nature for thousands of years, until the advent of a One-Size-Fits-All Industrial Civilization, which, like I said before, operates under the meme that constant expansion and production can occur and won't have any consequences.

As I've said in other threads, Industrial Civilization has managed to stay afloat for so long because until recently, there were always new places to expand to and exploit. Now, we've reached the limit of said places and Industrial Civilization is basically cannibalizing itself to keep the game going a little longer. But there are obvious flaws in that strategy.

4

Emeryael wrote

Oh look, a close-to-accurate statement. We aren't so anthropocentric as to claim that pollution only kills humans, it kills humans and plants.

To go with this, the prims are also smart enough to know that if you poison an ecosystem, wiping out all plant and animal life, it will kill humans as well, because it turns out we're part of said ecosystem and to pretend like we're not, act like somehow we're separate from the world and as such, can poison it and face no consequences, is an incredibly dumb, toxic idea.

8

Emeryael wrote

And of course, the "Find another planet" solution ignores the fact that if we don't learn how to properly live, stop with this whole idea of constant expansion/production, we'll eventually use up whatever new planets we discover and have to move on again. Do I need to explain how damn inefficient that short-term solution is?

And as always in all these scenarios, it will be the rich who will be able to buy their way out, while the poor are left behind to clean up the mess.

5

Emeryael wrote

Given the shit the CIA has done pretty much from Day One of its existence, no one involved with it has any right to claim the moral high ground.

Though I tell people, regarding the CIA, that whether they are good or bad at their job depends on how you define their job. If you define their job as "gathering intelligence about events going on in the world," then they are really, really terrible at it. The CIA has been consistently caught off-guard by just about every major historical event since its founding.

If you define their job as "staging coups, ensuring that the people we like, however ruthless a despot they may be, stay in power, while the people we don't like, even if they represent the popular will of their country, don't," then, well, that's pretty much the only thing the CIA is good at. Granted, so far every coup has resulted in massive blowback, but again, if the US government wants to overthrow someone, they call in the CIA.

1

Emeryael wrote

Me to the Rich People profiled in this article: Yeah, yeah, it's good to know you feel really bad about the pain and misery of others, but what are you going to do about it? "Feeling bad" is worthless without any actions attached to it.

3

Emeryael wrote

There won't be a State, but the vast majority of wealth and resources will be in the hands of an elite, who will be able to use their wealth/resources as a carrot-stick stratagem to keep everyone under their control. Which the AnCaps figure is totally different from a State.

3

Emeryael wrote

Well Caitlyn does have money. When it comes to the various privileges, money outweighs a lot, enough that Caitlyn might be able to buy her way out of being trans. Money means that no matter how much the GOP screws over anyone who isn't rich, white, and male, her funds will buy her way out of trouble and keep her safe.

The same cannot be said of most transgender people.