Wow, okay I was nice in the first message but this is actual straight up colonizer speak (edit real quick: and also an inadvertent confession, op stated that they grew up in a fascist culture but think of themself as too pure to have internalized values; the mistake that my comment is explicitly meant to teach about). “People are not land… people who refuse to flee with you, they are probably traditionalist or conservative.” Literally, literally a fundamental element in Land Back and other decolonial movements focus on the relationship between people and land exactly because severing that relationship is colonialism and many indigenous nations not only in North America, but throughout the colonized world explicitly state the restoration of that relationship as crucial to reconciliation. Even more, to suggest that indigenous nations that fight to stay are somehow morally at fault and are conservatives in a liberal sense is fucking genocidal. Which makes sense since you also just said some insane shit like, “vacuum decay is a humanitarian event,” like that doesn’t mean you think colonized people deserve to die because humanity is too morally impure for your God or whatever.
So much of the rest of these responses are circular arguments that do not actually relate to the scholarly ideas you think you’re engaging with. I take back what I said earlier, you actually aren’t a good person, and you are a fascist. LIke every fascist, you refuse the label but accept the values. Won’t be engaging with you again. (edit: I’d let go of Pandora too I guess, lol)
That is the consequence of what you’ve said here. As you were so apt to say, nobody owes anybody anything really, but people who adopt fascistic reasons not to make it so that any cooperation becomes a vector to cause even more harm; even if that harm is just them getting another chance to talk and spread their values. Fascists never want to accept the consequences of their actions because they feel wronged by them, hence the relationship between it, liberalism, and the decayed metropole. The world is wrong to refuse their will, no matter how self-destructive it is. And make no mistake, fascism is rooted in self-destruction in the same what that capitalism is, they’ll kill themselves and everyone else before they accept the consequences of their violence. That isn’t because they’re stupid, crazy or exceptionally hateful (even while they are), but because they have accepted that the world cannot produce what they want without that violence. You see why I took note of the circularity of your beliefs? You did say you were from the core, didn’t you?
Last lesson for real this time, you can take it or leave it.
You see why I took note of the circularity of your beliefs?
I don’t relate to the individual you are describing if you are using that to describe what you think I believe. I’m not aiming to enact violence. I’m aiming to flee it and tell other’s to try and avoid it. To seek safer spaces. On my selfish side I’m just trying to live the best life I can. One my moral philosophy side I’m advocating to minimize societally induced harm to every individual (if a tad over simplification).
Hell, this very critique you’ve produced could be levied at authoritarian leftists. Who’d enthusiastically agree that violence is necessary to achieve and maintain their goals and point at liberalism and insist they do the exact same thing.
You did say you were from the core, didn’t you?
While its made a difference I’m sure in making me who I am, this doesn’t refute my points or beliefs.
Its all just a nationalist talking point, but “from the other side”. Racial/ethnic animus as a political hammer. I don’t respect it.
Last lesson for real this time, you can take it or leave it.
I will always “take it”. But not in the way you might want me to.
“lesson” You have a high opinion of yourself.
I suppose I also do have a high opinion of myself in my own way, but unlike you I have a ravenous intellectual hunger for philosophical refutation of my own ideas that lemmy and for that matter most people refuse to give me. I legitimately am baffled why you don’t tear apart my posts piece by piece despite your confidence in your own beliefs. I don’t relate. I revel in chewing through everyone else’s ideas. When I find beliefs that fundamentally challenge mine at a deep rational level, its a thing to be celebrated. Its a meal. When I run across someone who is just wrong, I also at least get the catharsis of raging at their stupidity and evil.
At this point I know you don’t avoid my points because you lack energy to do so.
In you I see someone who may earnestly believe what they say but is afraid to consider things that might fracture or damage their existing beliefs. In order to refute my points, you have to actually consider them…
Wow, okay I was nice in the first message but this is actual straight up colonizer speak (edit real quick: and also an inadvertent confession, op stated that they grew up in a fascist culture but think of themself as too pure to have internalized values; the mistake that my comment is explicitly meant to teach about). “People are not land… people who refuse to flee with you, they are probably traditionalist or conservative.” Literally, literally a fundamental element in Land Back and other decolonial movements focus on the relationship between people and land exactly because severing that relationship is colonialism and many indigenous nations not only in North America, but throughout the colonized world explicitly state the restoration of that relationship as crucial to reconciliation. Even more, to suggest that indigenous nations that fight to stay are somehow morally at fault and are conservatives in a liberal sense is fucking genocidal. Which makes sense since you also just said some insane shit like, “vacuum decay is a humanitarian event,” like that doesn’t mean you think colonized people deserve to die because humanity is too morally impure for your God or whatever.
So much of the rest of these responses are circular arguments that do not actually relate to the scholarly ideas you think you’re engaging with. I take back what I said earlier, you actually aren’t a good person, and you are a fascist. LIke every fascist, you refuse the label but accept the values.
Won’t be engaging with you again.(edit: I’d let go of Pandora too I guess, lol)So you want to dump your ideas onto me without rationally defending them. Doesn’t seem like you engaged with me much at all in the first place.
That is the consequence of what you’ve said here. As you were so apt to say, nobody owes anybody anything really, but people who adopt fascistic reasons not to make it so that any cooperation becomes a vector to cause even more harm; even if that harm is just them getting another chance to talk and spread their values. Fascists never want to accept the consequences of their actions because they feel wronged by them, hence the relationship between it, liberalism, and the decayed metropole. The world is wrong to refuse their will, no matter how self-destructive it is. And make no mistake, fascism is rooted in self-destruction in the same what that capitalism is, they’ll kill themselves and everyone else before they accept the consequences of their violence. That isn’t because they’re stupid, crazy or exceptionally hateful (even while they are), but because they have accepted that the world cannot produce what they want without that violence. You see why I took note of the circularity of your beliefs? You did say you were from the core, didn’t you?
Last lesson for real this time, you can take it or leave it.
I don’t relate to the individual you are describing if you are using that to describe what you think I believe. I’m not aiming to enact violence. I’m aiming to flee it and tell other’s to try and avoid it. To seek safer spaces. On my selfish side I’m just trying to live the best life I can. One my moral philosophy side I’m advocating to minimize societally induced harm to every individual (if a tad over simplification).
Hell, this very critique you’ve produced could be levied at authoritarian leftists. Who’d enthusiastically agree that violence is necessary to achieve and maintain their goals and point at liberalism and insist they do the exact same thing.
While its made a difference I’m sure in making me who I am, this doesn’t refute my points or beliefs.
Its all just a nationalist talking point, but “from the other side”. Racial/ethnic animus as a political hammer. I don’t respect it.
I will always “take it”. But not in the way you might want me to.
“lesson” You have a high opinion of yourself.
I suppose I also do have a high opinion of myself in my own way, but unlike you I have a ravenous intellectual hunger for philosophical refutation of my own ideas that lemmy and for that matter most people refuse to give me. I legitimately am baffled why you don’t tear apart my posts piece by piece despite your confidence in your own beliefs. I don’t relate. I revel in chewing through everyone else’s ideas. When I find beliefs that fundamentally challenge mine at a deep rational level, its a thing to be celebrated. Its a meal. When I run across someone who is just wrong, I also at least get the catharsis of raging at their stupidity and evil.
At this point I know you don’t avoid my points because you lack energy to do so.
In you I see someone who may earnestly believe what they say but is afraid to consider things that might fracture or damage their existing beliefs. In order to refute my points, you have to actually consider them…