LostYonder wrote (edited )

Three points: first, can you name one country where the "current state of things" is that dissimilar from Pakistan? Child abuse, discrimination and violence against women, oppression of marginalized social communities - all seem pretty universal practices in every nation-state.

Second, of course a nation is an institution. You conflate "structure" and "institution". The nation idea - territorialized identity based on some semblance of shared culture and history - is a completely and totally fabricated idea. Nations are made-up artifices that are internalized as "real" through a variety of oppressive mechanism that attempt to homogenize cultures, languages, religions within a given territory. They are produced through schooling, mass media, museums, holidays, etc., that people imagine as real and kill others because of that imagination!

Third, nations are inherently oppressive - even without a state to overtly police the boundaries of the nation. Not everyone in any country belong to the same nation, the same culture, have the same language, or history. The nation must somehow claim and assert commonality, which means erasing the culture of minorities, killing them, keeping others out, forcing a single language on them, etc. It happens as much in France and the US, as in Pakistan and India.

The nation-state is the most destructive artifice mankind has ever come up with, much more destructive than religion!


LostYonder wrote

While the idea of shifting mind-sets of students from grade-motivation to knowledge motivation is a much needed change in our education system, the problem is, it is still predicated on an "education system". Pirsig reproduces the idea that learning should be institutionalized, hierarchical, and unidirectional. What is being proposed, in the end, isn't liberatory, the hypothetical person would still be a mule - one more motivated by taking learning seriously rather than forced by discipline, but their mind would still be shaped to serve the existing system...


LostYonder wrote

The Holocaust was a Fordist model of genocide, whereas the the US practice is more akin to carpet bombing (literally and figuratively) - just destroy the basic structure of a society and let it unravel on its own - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen (via proxy), most of Central America in the 80s, and SE Asia in the 60s and 70s....


LostYonder wrote

They wouldn't be human, that's for sure. The idea of humans living in a vacuum is a liberal wet-dream! Essentially, the vacuum idea is the basis of Rawls's Original Position - no history, no culture, no ideology. According to Rawls, the people inside the OP would, miraculously, adopt liberalism as the basis of their ethics and social order. Of course, the other view of humans in a vacuum (assuming there are more than one) is the Lord of the Flies syndrome - the liberal imagining of what anarchy is like - self-serving, chaotic, violent, dystopic.

Ultimately though, despite the western liberal imagination, humans don't live in vacuums, don't live without their histories, their cultures, their faiths. Liberalism needs to erase those to make everyone good liberals - its imperialistic, violent, and oppressive.

Why ask what we would be like inside a vacuum? why not accept it doesn't exist and the world is messy, infused with incredible diversity...


LostYonder wrote

The only one responsible for the increasing number of incels, or at least their increasing visibility, are incels themselves! It is called a REACTIONary movement for a reason - they are reacting to their perceived loss of power/status/domination in society because they have warped mentalities that believe they actually are entitled to power/status/domination over women for no reason other than their gender.

Incels are morons and it is best they remain as incels rather than continue to inbreed...


LostYonder wrote


Why can't we make our own beer, biodegradable soaps, publish our own books??? Yes, we are dependent on goods being traded, shipped, and made available but we don't have to be dependent on particular or singular corporations that attempt to corner the market on particular produced things.

Can't we rethink economies where corporations or their particular goods/brands are the defining feature? How is it that even our own desires and tastes are defined by a corporation?


LostYonder wrote

My interest is part of a research project actually, finding different critiques of and alternatives to peace as a liberal/statist project.

I fully get and appreciate that peace should not be imagined as an ideology, a "road-map", a utopic imposition. Though, that is one approach - a sort of guiding principle, how to imagine a peaceful society, or at least one freed from the mass destruction of state-capitalism and more equitable than liberal impositions.

I think what I am trying to get at is, is peace as an overarching value of social relations, a social ethic--how we interact with one another, our sense of giving, our hospitality towards strangers, our willingness to not accept any form of injustice or inequalities. That is, is there a conceptualization of peace as a lived ethic of everyday encounters and interactions?


LostYonder wrote

The assumption of astrology is that the date of birth informs your personality, your behavior patterns, and your future. It seems to me ludicrous, at best, to assume 360,000 people that are born on the exact same day all are going to have the same qualities regardless of the actual context of their births, their psychological make-up as it becomes formed by their rearing/family, and their socio-cultural worlds.

Even if one was to concede that there is some basis to it - so what? what are you going to do with that information? It seems to me there are much more productive processes of self-reflection and awareness that actually provide us a guide for recognizing/defining, pursuing, and achieving our aspirations...


LostYonder wrote

At the moment it will capture some interest for disaffected Democrats while simultaneously providing a basis for radicals to find a legitimate foundation to meet, talk, and do things on the local level. ultimately, the liberals will either undermine it by making it a "safe space" for all or abandon it, disowning it. As for the radicals, it will be a cathartic exercise in building a national platform and continue as a place to be locally engaged, but it will be highly circumscribed by its national ambitions and the liberal mindset...

I would like to be more hopeful, and I do think it is worth supporting if only as a strategic disruption to the 2-party system, but it is called a system for a reason and you can't penetrate it and remain true to your values and objectives; you can only ultimately destroy it!