...no, I'm pretty sure she's saying that the entire the left/right spectrum is a statist concept

I like the one that complains that "anprims" are scaremongering about technology, then in the next sentence says that they would lead us to famines and genocide

hahahaha

oh wait, you're serious?

the fuck is with the liberal influx lately?

alternatively phrased: "Do you wish to build fascism?"

or "Are you content with contributing towards the spreading of fascism?"

I'm aware of this (hence scare quotes around """meritocracy""") and maybe I should have been clearer that I'm not trying to suggest that one of these things is justified. I'm trying to figure out if it's worth distinguishing between the two for the sake of critique, or for the sake of tactics used in combatting them

I think I meant something more specific than a simply ranking people when I said "competitive hierarchy", as simply ranking people by some metric doesn't constitute a hierarchy. I think I'm trying to talk about when a metric for ranking people gets conflated as some sort of "objective" metric, as the metric by which people should be compared. Although this can happen with multiple metrics at once. I think what I mean by "competitive hierarchy" is when the ranking system gets treated as if it's some sort of objective measure of a persons status or value.

What? Banning landlords for bragging about taking money from renters? What's next? banning capitalists for bragging about union busting? This is a slippery slope. Before you know it, they'll be banning fascists... This is a direct violation of my freedom from consequences of speech

This implies higher requirements for protein and essential fatty acids. The body does not produce them, it must be brought in via animal proteins.

yes, it logically follows that we have no choice but to use animal proteins to gain nutrition found in plants

is there any particular reason for that? seems a bit of a failure of transparency

emma goldman

Yeah, so do it!

why don't you?

not heard about this, what happened?

Autism Spectrum Condition

ex-girlfriend*

I would hope, at least

this gives me the big bad 404

I can understand how you feel, the shit liberals will go at lengths defend can be fucking agrivating and it's easy to start believing humanity deserves to die because of it. It's perfectly understandable for one to start thinking along these lines in frustrating situations, when you're just so fucking fed up and done with the constant half-baked excuses for the subjugation and domination of massive groups of people. However, I would like to say that I always found misanthropic remarks like this to be completely circular - at least when it's based in human-human oppression as it is 90% of the time. Although I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to be rational in frustrated moments like this, it's basically using the horiffic oppressive shit humans do to eachother to justify horrific shit to be done to all humans - they deserve what's coming to them because of how oppressive they are. But, if all humans deserve what's coming to them, then those that are oppressed must also deserve their oppression (as they too are human), therefore the oppresser must be justified in their oppression. Therefore, the oppression isn't so bad after all. Therefore, the entire basis for the misanthropy no longer exists.

I think punishment is a tool of authority - used by authority to strengthen power and control over others and to bolster its "legitimacy". Proof that authority has backing. It exists both to establish the punisher as an authority and to beat all others into submission to them. I'm honestly starting to believe the whole concept of what people "deserve" is rooted in hierarchy, nothing but a tool used to establish authority, determining what those beneath them do and do not "deserve". "The poor do not deserve to have anything. The rich should keep their wealth because they deserve it. White men deserve their position because they earned it. 'Uncivilised' nations deserve to be invaded. Western nations deserve their position because they earned it." It's meritocratic bullshit, which, like all supposed "meritocracy", is nothing more than a flimsy justification for authority.

This does not mean to say I reject all violence, just violence that is based in punishment and what is and isn't "deserved". I believe violence should only be used for purely pragmatic reasons, because it is necessary not because it's "deserved". If somebody attacks me and I kill them in self defence, I do not do it because they "deserved" to die, I do it because it was necessary to defend myself. If someone tries to rape someone else and I end up killing the rapist I don't do it because they "deserve" to die or because they "deserved" to have violence used against them, I do it because it was necessary to prevent rape. If there is a revolution and I end up killing a cop or a fascist, I don't do it because they "deserved" to die, but because it was the only way of preventing further harm.

All that said, I'm not exactly going to be up in arms if the oppressed decide to lynch their oppressors. It's an understandable human reaction to living under oppression for so long and to be absolutely clear I don't think anyone is wrong to feel this way.

That does make a lot more sense. To be honest I'd never heard "to stand up to" used to mean "to withstand" in the context of people, I've only ever heard it as "to stand against" such as in "they stood up to the school bully". Honestly I'd forgotten that the term was ever even used to mean "to withstand"

I read it, but the title still doesn't make sense to me. The article seems to be suggesting those who stand by and do nothing are helping tyranny. But the title is saying the opposite of that - it says that tyranny is only as powerful as those who stand up to it, that is those who stand against tyranny. Hence the confusion, it makes no sense in isolation or in the context of the article for tyranny to be able to get stronger as a result of people opposing it. Hence I wondered if the title was a mistake and was actually supposed to say the opposite, that tyranny is only as strong as people that don't stand against it.

yes, but isn't the point that tyranny is more powerful when bystanders don't stand up to it? The title "Tyranny is only powerful as those willing to stand up to it" suggests that it's more powerful when people do stand up to it.

is the title supposed to be in the negative? as in:

Tyranny is only as powerful as those who aren't willing to stand up to it

because otherwise it eludes me

try unlimited access for $1

yea, how about no