I don’t think you actually have any interest in my first principles, and because the question isn’t genuine, I don’t care to discuss them with you.

I absolutely wouldn’t commit to the current “equilibrium”, as it’s dysfunctional all around. I don’t care about the overton window shift, because there’s an underlying objective reality that tends to keep it swinging back and forth. When we tip outside of that typical swing, it’s generally exploitation by one party and myopia by the other, or some similar dynamic. On top of that, i just don’t base my decisions on whether something is right or left.

I an not suggesting that we should be lobbing grenades at college protestors. I’m pointing out that this is occurring in a comparatively ‘liberal’ state (California) and in a comparatively ‘liberal’ context (academia), and that liberal ideals leave liberals open to authoritarian abuse, yet they are shocked when it happens.

This, of course, isn’t unique to liberals. If things get too authoritarian, you open yourself up to manipulation - case in point, the current state of the Republican party.

shrug I’ve already said what I need to, and nothing you said is unexpected or new. My opinion stands, yours stands, and time moves on. Have a good one.

This is the process of excessive liberality turning into excessive authority, and relates to what Republicans react to (with equally excessive zeal) by calling democrats fascist.

Democrats are not (necessarily) fascists. Republicans are not (necessarily) nazis. But the problematic tendencies of the extremes of the parties aren’t resolved by going more extremely partisan and authoritarian.

I had to ditch my girlfriend because she became an arch elitist. Debian ftw.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Those few Dems are clearly the ones pushing this. But that it should be bipartisan and should have more support in general has nothing to do with false equivocation.

The irony here, though, is that because of your partisan BS, you clearly interpreted that as an insult to the Democrats.

No. Not at all. That’s not the comment I replied to.

Hey bro? Calm down, it was a joke. It’s not that serious. Did you skip your meds today pal?

Supporting the person who does take it seriously, though, when you make fun of him with that dull take? Absolutely.

Solid take.

It’s called personal responsibility. You should learn to accept that some subjects are going to be taken seriously, because they are (literally) life and death circumstances. If you don’t, they’ll just be taken seriously anyways, and you’re the asshole.

If I had to trust some internet rando with my life, I’d have no qualms choosing @Etterra@lemmy.world .

Those three Democrat are focusing on the thing all of the Democrats and Republicans should.

Yeah, there’s stuff to like, but… but…

I just disable most of the Pop stuff and use vanilla gnome.

Ok, grumpy bear.

Beep beep coming though!

Mental retardation is no excuse for abuse. But it’s still an apt term, in denotation. But the connotation has become unacceptable.

A plant’s growth may be retarded due to various conditions, and that may interfere with it’s prospects for survival.

Fire retardant may prevent a fire from starting, or stop one that has started to develop.

But when considering people, there are a whole slew of subtle problems, including that people may include that in their identity, and give up. They can be treated, possibly, but that’s all for them now. You’re a retard. It leaves no room for other things. People still feel this way about some diagnoses that, if they didn’t lean into them so hard, leave plenty of room for change. But the social weight behind “retard” just carries too much crap, and speaks volumes - some of which may be true, but a lot of which is not.

‘Disabled’, ‘undeveloped’, and ‘inhibited’ can be good terms. But most of it depends more heavily on how we treat others and what has been taken into common use.

Everybody will answer “greed, racism, idiocy, and bigotry” or some such rubbish, because morally and overall psychologically, that’s the most comfortable answer.

The real thing is somewhat complex, and most people won’t buy it.

Of course, part of it is those things, but there’s way more going on here, some of it is cultural dynamics, some of it conscious intent. Those specifics are the symptoms, not the disease (though they may be diseases in their own rite).

• structural weaknesses in the US government, which was barely meant to handle the complexity millions of people, much less tens or hundreds of millions of people. I.e., bandwidth issues. As more people push their views and goals into the system, all of that needs to get governed or implemented somehow. But there is no cohesive operating principle that guides US (and even other western) culture. There is no razor - not even material necessity (staying in-budget, or managing debt effectively) is accepted. There is no means to trim implementation that all parties will be happy with, so things don’t get trimmed. They get crammed in, the laws (in the sense of legal structure, not crime) are consequentially self-conflicting, improbable, or impossible to fulfill. This leads to an intrinsically unstable environment, ripe for (and rife with, by all parties) abuse. What you are seeing is, in part, the breakdown of the rule of law. This breakdown can be allayed, to some degree, with authoritarian means, but that only goes so far, even if that authority has a willingness and capability to work with the people as a whole - which none of the active authorities do, anyways, except maybe Bernie, and he’s been written off by the authorities because he can’t work with them well, and they also have valid concerns that must be addressed. But, in any case, whether centralized or not, this breakdown is to be expected, because the rule of law, unless supplemented with common principle, becomes… well… legalistic, and rife with abuse.

• governance that doesn’t match underlying principles: we have no conscious least common denominator. People often point to distinct nations and say things like “see? they are doing X right!”, but that nation has a cohesive culture, and isn’t dealing with anywhere near the level of cultural complexity that any melting-pot nations are dealing with. What is enforceable must be agreed upon by common culture - or you must sacrifice the reality (though not necessarily the pretense) of diversity, and enforce your way. But that has obvious flaws. Instead, it is better, in my opinion, to enforce sovereignty, which is intrinsically what all the different cultures want, anyways, except that they also want to take control of everyone - which they don’t get to do in a system with sovereignty as a basis, except by people ascribing to that culture. What you are seeing, is in part, a breakdown of unity due to a lack of agreement about what can be universally enforced. I.e., the system implemented does not address underlying cultural commonalities.

• the need to incorporate raw power and personal responsibility into the governing body. Bending the rules, breaking the rules with impunity, changing the rules, explicit and implicit coercion are all possible, and as such, the existing system or ruling party must be able to address these things, and incorporate them where needed, for the larger good of upholding the spirit of the law. This relates to the breakdown of the rule of law, but is more primal: you know raw power must be met with raw power. That power can be of a different form, but it must be effective.

• unconscious cognition of complex truths: or, in some senses, the “vote of no confidence”. People understand, or are at least impacted, by the above issues. They have instinctive reactions against external control, and for good reason, as individual sovereignty is the source of a solid collective. But in any case, many people are aware there is a problem, don’t see a solution, and are see no option but to let things burn. This may not even be a conscious choice, but simply an overall feeling - and thus, more powerful and deeply-rooted.

• genuine mockery and rejection of opposing views. Nobody gets each other, unconsciously, and everyone else treats others outside their worldview like shit, and pretends that doesn’t matter. A lot of the left separated from the “Christian” right due to this - only to turn around and do the same thing to the center and right, feeling just as justified in doing so. But it creates real alienation and aggravates the already deep wounds and rifts that exist. One’s personal actions, thoughts, and feelings may not seem to matter, but they resound loudly in the whole - and making personal change does, too. For those who are genuinely growing and facing their hearts and minds - my respect.

All of these contribute to Trump’s rising and staying power. Of course, he’s just riding a wave of unconscious thought, and if it weren’t him, it’d be someone else. But people like to fixate on a face.

The actual thing we’re trying to do (integrate diversity into a cohesive whole) requires genuine acceptance and support of differing world views (including non-scientific or non-Christian ones - why do I have to say this?). That means that your group, your ideology, must make room for the people who are “wrong”, and wish to live their lives wrongly in abhorrent wrongness - though they never gain the right to enforce participation in their culture, above and beyond what is a natural requisite by birth, upbringing, or other dependency.

That is, each person and organization has a sovereign right to rule their own life and the lives of their dependents as they see fit, but does not have the right to force others to use their system, nor to prevent others from abandoning their system and starting their own or joining another. This integrates the very opposite of federation (well, not in the Lemmy sense, which is actually confederation, but that’s a no-no-word because some people thought that confederation did give them the right to force others through slavery - but it doesn’t).

But Sovereignty Culture isn’t simply confederacy, like Lemmy is, but it heads towards the same things. That which can be federal is only that which we fundamentally agree on. The federal must not be used as a means of furthering ideologies, but as a means of resolving disputes between differing ideologies. It can have as much power as the people grant it, and no more - else it loses the people. By making sovereignty a keystone of culture and governance, we intrinsically grant and naturally enforce rights of others, but without placing a burden on others (except the burden of self governance, which you already have, and can’t avoid).

Meh. What flavor is the milkshake? Will having the milkshake even make life better for anyone?

Better than bullion ftw.

I’m saying that if you believe there is no all-loving, all-knowing, etc god/force/nature to the world, then just live whatever your best ideals are. Love, goodness, selfishness, hate, rage at a bullshit god - it doesn’t matter. Each will fail. But the experience of living that ideal, consciously, is valuable.

“It” is the ideal, or principle, or perspective you live by, and invest your time and energy into. But I don’t think you need to do something specific. I don’t think a person can intentionally let something go until they’ve lived enough of it, and that can’t really be rushed or stopped.

So, if that is the case, then if you actually value something - love, or good, or selfishness - be that, and be it to the whole of your ability. It will fail you, and you’ll have to move on. Be it until you can let go without having to shove it away. It will be an option for you - something you’re familiar with, that you can draw upon, genuinely, when it fits.

Do this enough, and the love grows, and you see why love is. Not only that, you’ll start to see the massive impact that the mentality you project has on the actual events you run into in life - and once you see it, you gain more insight into it, and how to work with life, love, etc, including when to stand against it.

Rage on.

Yep. Love doesn’t care for good or evil, just what it takes to care for those whom it loves.

God can only be all knowing, all loving, and all powerful if the power is distributed between three aspects that have imperfect communication. Or, if there’s atemporal consent, or the present situation for any given individual is the desired one, or that the overall situation (including lack of knowledge) is the one the person would choose, were they to have access to more information. Or any combination of the above.

So yes, while there may be aspects of truth in the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful mythos, it isn’t internally consistent unless you assume the overall, correct picture isn’t the way people typically see the world. And the way people view god sometimes - to be able to live without the consequences of living - is less accurate even than a fairy tale.