swim
- 0 Posts
- 17 Comments
I don’t believe it is actually helpful to proselytize nonviolence. I appreciate your position and your contribution, and your experiences have value independent of the validity of your assertions about nonviolence writ large.
I’ve left links to full books at the bottom of this comment. Here is a quote from the introduction to the first:
Nonviolence has lost the debate. Over the last 20 years, more and more social movements and rebellions against oppression and exploitation have broken out across the world, and within these movements people have learned all over again that nonviolence does not work. They are learning that the histories of purported nonviolent victories have been falsified, that specific actions or methods that could be described as nonviolent work best when they are complemented by other actions or methods that are illegal and combative. They are learning that exclusive, dogmatic nonviolence does not stand a chance at achieving a revolutionary change in society, at getting to the roots of oppression and exploitation and bringing down those who are in power.
At best, nonviolence can oblige power to change its masks, to put a new political party on the throne and possibly expand the social sectors that are represented in the elite, without changing the fundamental fact that there is an elite that rules and benefits from the exploitation of everybody else. And if we look at all the major rebellions of the last two decades, since the end of the Cold War, it seems that nonviolence can only effect this cosmetic change if it has the support of a broad part of the elite—usually the media, the wealthy, and at least a part of the military, because nonviolent resistance has never been able to resist the full force of the State.
Almost all chewing gum contains plastic, and as such stands to be a big source of microplastics in your body (and the environment, especially when not disposed of “properly”).
In the US, companies are allowed to list “gum base” in the ingredients when the “gum base” could mean anything - but it almost always means PVA (polyvinylacetate; a plasticizer).
Some gum marketed to people who realize this uses chicle, as gum originally did, or some other non-plastic, but it needs to explicitly state this. “Gum base” = “not telling you” = undoubtedly chewing microplastics into your body.
Highly recommend. Bravo for suggesting this book.
8·5 months agoIt was tongue-in-cheek, along with “unfortunately”
Three times a day, or, if you can muster it, once a day!
Making it dangerous to smoke while in transit. I see why the people ones didn’t catch on in the 50s.
Very cool, I’ve never seen the ones that can send a person. Can they breathe in transit?
I don’t think you understand, because you came out of left field to restate my point as “the only way to bring about systemic change is through Marxism.”
Wtf? Where did I say anything related to Marxism, let alone use the word?
I will reply to your quote:
There are other things like support for social justice and human rights, anti-imperialism and internationalism, desire for systemic change, secularism, opposition to traditional hierarchies, etc. Are you then going to tell me that these characteristics i have outlined are right wing? Or that they are only achievable by being Marxist or Anarchist?
No! Those things are only achievable through anticapitalism! Marxism and anarchism are examples of anticapitalist thought.
“Opposition to traditional hierarchies,” “desire for systemic change,” “anti-imperialism,” and “social justice” are hollow, offensive, and nonsensical when ignoring capitalism.
I’m not a Marxist, and you can call yourself whatever you like, but if you haven’t attained class consciousness enough to recognize that capitalism is a death cult, you’re a fucking liberal.
Friend, take the straight point as it’s delivered: capitalism is a system of oppression, and “liberals” support capitalism.
Leftists call those saying “this system of oppression would be perfect, with only some changes” liberals.
3·8 months agoThe bootlicking version of “why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?”
If he was a tighter it’d be a different story
51·9 months agoWould you say what you’re seeking is “more intimacy,” up to, potentially, the most possible intimacy?
I would suggest looking at his different interests and getting curious. If you’re interested in the guy, it should be pretty easy to find reasons why this film or that game are endearingly-this-or-that in a way that makes you like and respect him even more.
Then, you bond over it; by trusting his taste (intimacy) enough to check out that show or whatever interest, you now have an opportunity to get deep (intimacy) into what you each individually felt (intimacy) about it, and maybe you felt something in common. That’s some foundation for intimacy.
We already went over it, I hit him so no refunds
everybodys saying it