Gender and Violence and Blame
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 20:14
VIEWED: 35151
PAGE 26 of 31
I am no way suggesting that anyone abandon any emotion. All of them have their purpose and their uses and are necessary, at times for survival.
I am indeed talking about the use of falsely manipulated fear for political and or commercial reasons and am suggesting in a cautionary manner that we each consider in what ways we are being manipulated to be fearful, and whether those fears are really justified.
Fear is intended to motivate quick action. It is supposed to be a short, sharp emotion, not to be lived with for extended periods of time. The impact humans emotionally, psychologically and physically when they live with fear for extended periods of time is dramatic and harmful and probably can account for at least some of the mental health problems experienced enmasse in western societies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nothing really changes.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Cynicism is the easiest, most disempowered worldview, man. It helps no one. Try a little optimism, try to find meaning and progress in the world and help it along and you might live a little longer.
Major Nelson once asked Jeannie if she could fill the Sahara desert with water to make it arable, she said she could, but it would cause droughts elsewhere.
And that's the way things go; fix one problem, another appears to take its place.
No, the internet won't be swept away, just twisted, regulated, monitored, and ultimately used for societal control & monetary gain for them that are already rich. At this moment (on the internet) we are freer than we will ever be again. Avarice, greed & the general need to frack up anything that works as is will chip away at an increasing pace. It's a forever war.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
"Yeah, major bummer."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:HKC... My first response was to the word "envy" bc frankly, I stopped reading there. There are many problems one can solve by framing them as emotions, but the problem of sociopaths controlling the world isn't one of them.
Chris. You and Signy with your "Stop thinking because people are dying!"
On further reading, you went about where I thought you would- "Be the change you wish to see". In using the opponent's tactics, you risk becoming the same thing. War is a poor tool of peace. Etc. Please let me know of I'm off the mark in my restatement.
Well, I don't think I'm proposing any such thing. But here is a question that you, FREM, and TONY need to answer for yourselves: Are democracy and free speech impositions? Is prohibiting the monopolization of the lines of communication a tyranny? Are ALL rules harmful?
Ultimately I see that there are rules that even the most peaceable and equitable societies impose, if only that most agree that self-centered people must not rule society for their exclusive benefit. That's a rule, right? And there must be at least one effective consequence, if the consequences is only banishment. So I think I understand your viewpoint, but in taking it to its logical extreme it stops making sense. Thinking that you can achieve a good society by eliminating ALL rules doesn't address the economic dynamics that we have set up... eg. very fine division of labor, large-scale economic integration, and exchange-at-a-distance. Those particular dynamics make it very easy for the sociopath to operate undetected and completely outside of the realm of individual response.
Also, it doesn't address the fact that we are ALREADY living under a set of rules imposed on us and not for our benefit.
Think of society as like a body... more than individual cells. While each cell carries out the same basic operations, each cell also has a specialized function. There are (or should be) limits to any cell's acquisition of resources and growth, otherwise you have a cancer. The consequences are brought about by the immune system.
The question for me isn't whether there should be rules or not. My view that society is like an organism makes it clear that there are rules that must be followed or the organism fails. The question for ME is... what are the least number of rules, and who implements them, which has the highest chance of being self-sustaining and impervious to corruption. For example, it's pretty clear that democracy was a good idea, but it became corrupted pretty quickly when another source of power (economic power, as opposed to political power) took over.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And that's the way things go; fix one problem, another appears to take its place."
Well, life is an endless series of problems that must be solved over and over - getting water, getting food, staying warm ... etc - or life ends. What do you propose as the solution to end all problems - death?
Anyway, in that response I see the American inability to imagine anything better. But hard as it is to imagine, there are whole countries where the people are healthier, happier, more peaceable, better housed, better educated, better fed. Of course one can't fix all problems permanently and make paradise on earth. But there are better choices and worse choices. Why not choose the better?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Depends on what the pros and cons are. Sometimes something that sounds good and easy has a lot of strings attached that makes it look less attractive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then you have to look at the result. For example, looking at the US economic system which is SUPPOSED to be superior, does it produce a superior result compared to other countries?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Like cable TV and iPhones?
Sometimes something that sounds good and easy has a lot of strings attached that makes it look less attractive.
As my hubby likes to say "Unexamined convenience is the road to extinction."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Results are precisely what I'm talking about. You ask me about existing countries, I don't actually like any of the systems of existing countries. Particularly I know you support a mixed economy, whereas I think there are too many strings attached, so I'm a big believer in micro-economies.
Sig: Kinda? Both have their problems, true, and are instrumental in dividing people, isolating people. I'd actually argue the pros for them outweigh the cons though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can imagine a whole lot better, but I live in a country where OJ Simpson can get away with murdering his Wife & I can't beat a bulls**t traffic ticket. The difference is money. It can solve problems, but in acquiring it, create just as many more.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Anyway, in that response I see the American inability to imagine anything better.
Truth fades before the allmighty Dollar; justice fears it. Individuals and institutions kill for it.
Like I said, nothing ever really changes. Except the window dressing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... I don't actually like any of the systems of existing countries ..."
Well, when I say look at the results, I mean tangible, measurable results. Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer? Do more people have an effect on how the society is run, or fewer?
As I see it, there are all sorts of 'isms', both social and personal, which seek to abolish some things and enforce others - mostly based on some theoretical notion of how things 'should' be. And frequently compliance is based on an as yet undemonstrated result - If you do this and don't so that you will get to heaven. If you do this and don't do that it will create a bountiful society for the productive. If you do this and don't do that everyone will be perfectly free. And so on. Those 'isms' I think of as religion b/c they are based on unproven beliefs.
So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.
The reason why I think things are so fucked up at the moment - and they are fucked up, we are facing environmental collapse the like of which will put any minor economic problem like the Great Depression into perspective - is b/c people are putting their hope in 'isms' rather than demanding results which benefit THEM directly.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME