naevaTheRat
@naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Despite all my rage I’m still a rat refreshing this page.
I use arch btw
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 3 days ago:
Pretty similar, I had forgotten the name of Jess’s book. I think hers focuses more on legal stuff in Australia iirc and less on the personal psychology but it’s there too.
They’re both using the same body of knowledge.
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 3 days ago:
So if you read that book, or look into any of the research behind DV you will learn that it’s not really a problem women can confront at the source because the psychology behind it is one which fundamentally views women as inferior. In the same way if someone is racist somebody from a group they hate is unlikely to meet with much success trying to change their views (at best probably getting recognition as “one of the good ones”) women talking to men about why we’re actually whole-arse people doesn’t work very well.
Aside from trying in vain to get men to learn literally anything about why DV happens and why they can actually make a massive difference talking to their mates and setting norms for acceptable ideas about women at work/at the gym/at the club etc it’s not really in my means to donate to a shelter or whatever. I do volunteer for the greens around elections.
That said, being a woman in society there’s the sort of basic keeping an eye on things. Making a point to chat with neighbours, hosting drinks, sharing food etc that gives you a bit of a chance to have a network of support for people, victims tend to hide the harm believing themselves to be at fault so there’s not a good chance you’ll actually know. You can call a welfare check on a house if you hear a nasty fight but it’s unlikely to do much.
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 4 days ago:
The left doesn’t want you to know this but 100% of leftist women are dommes
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 4 days ago:
I do note an interesting difference in your approach to how to handle DV vs how to handle someone stringing a wire across a bike path. It may be a contradiction you wish to reflect on.
You might want to read this book to get a better idea behind the psychology of DV.
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 4 days ago:
I’m not trying to have a go, I’m trying to understand. I agree that feeling shut out and having people say awful stuff because of your gender is bad. Surely you see that women deal with this too right though? and extremely extensively.
If you look at the upper echelons of society women are not there, if you look at the trades women aren’t respected, in corporate life women routinely feel like they have to get a man to say their ideas to be taken seriously. When I worked tech support I signed my emails with a man’s name because otherwise customers argued with me (this wasn’t me being ridiculous, my boss asked me to start doing it because he got annoyed reading the tickets going overtime).
So it’s like, surely having experienced some of it you get that all of it is bad right? You wouldn’t arrive at men being under attack, but rather gender equality being important so nobody feels this way.
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 4 days ago:
It’s not like we’re choosing to let domestic violence to continue. We’re just as powerless as anyone else.
I think this is really interesting, who do you think can?
It’s also true that male loneliness is pretty significant, and lonely guys are more prone to developing extreme and hateful views but the only people that can do anything about man to man friendships are other men.
There are some fantastic initiatives like lens sheds that are trying to knit a healthy social structure and almost nobody participates in them.
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 4 days ago:
“but you are a white man, you can’t help anyone” or something of the like. Really sticks with you.
That’s a silly thing to say but it also sounds like it came from the mouth of a teenager? Teenagers say lots of dumb stuff I wouldn’t recommend forming societal views based on them.
Most women have had the experience of being humiliated sexually, and belittled intellectually by young men. Do you feel that women should feel like we’re under attack?
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 5 days ago:
Could you just summarise it because a video is sort of an inaccessible format for public text discussion?
- Comment on The guardian on Joe Rogan's popularity in Aus, and some peoples' reasons for listening. 5 days ago:
“middle path of masculinity”, between the “emasculated” and “browbeaten” male of the far left and the Tate-like women haters and “pickup artists” of the far right.
“We want to foster the good side [of masculinity],” he says. “Which is being on the mission, wanting to be strong, being something of a warrior, but also being the good man, the loving husband, the loving partner, the good father”
“There is a vitriol against that idea[…]"
If you ask most people who allegedly want to brow beat men what “good masculinity” is you would probably get stuff like:
- strong and helpful
- patient
- skilled
- protects people
- Loving and attentive
- Takes care of body and mind
- Good in a crisis
This guy is claiming men are attacked for wanting to be strong, loving, a good father, and ‘something of a warrior’
Idk what the last means but I basically only see men attacked for
- treating women as less then men
- using violence to solve problems that could be talked out
- using violence on the vulnerable
Which uh, notably aren’t in his list of reason men are attacked. So I want to ask what men’s opinions are.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
Look ultimately words mean what they mean in the context that they’re spoken but broadly neoliberalism is highly socially permissive. Provided, that is, one does this as a responsible member of the capitalist economy and doesn’t disrupt the market.
Like you can have neoliberals that love trans kids, celebrate pride, want more black female drone pilots etc. It is, however, not a neoliberal position say compare the number of vacant properties to the number of homeless people and suggest that perhaps we should just take the unused houses and give them to homeless people? That would violate the principles of private property and free markets. After all: what freedom does one have if you can’t watch someone freeze to death on the doorstep of your vacant investment?
If your friends think that freedom to do that is utterly absurd and a society which defends that is fundamentally rotten then they are not liberals in the academic sense, however their substantially more leftist stance may be called liberalism in the political context you find yourselves in.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
To clarify my question. What do you mean ‘actually liberal’ ideologies?
Like what are their thoughts on monetarism?private property? free association? private entities in markets? Debt and paying it, both private and state held?
If they think that the state should provide the means of subsistence of the entire populus, that property should in general be held in common and private property is not sacred, that government entities in a market are often more effective than private and/or that business should be heavily regulated to serve common good, that debts should be cancelled when it is not realistic or fair to pay them etc. Or perhaps even further afield positions like questioning nation States, police, militaries and boarders… well, then they are not in fact liberals haha.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
What do they see as different between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly a post-Keynesian revitalisation of classical liberal economic positions updated with modern banking practices and globalisation.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
… everyone? hence my use of broadly? It has complete and utter ideological hegemony since like the 70s. If you study economics you study neoliberal economics and they don’t even bother specifying. All major political parties in the anglosphere and most of western Europe follow neoliberal ideology, even the green-left is largely neoliberal. There are basically no classical liberals left.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
I think I misunderstood you.
See my other comment for why I think freedom is sort of a useless thing to frame anything around. At least without further clarification.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
Reactionary ideologies are incoherent.
- Comment on The government is under pressure to ban gambling ads. History shows half-measures don’t work. 5 months ago:
In an age of neoliberalism governments are terrified of actually being a government.
The restriction of freedom of say association bans and move on orders is apparently fine. Restricting the freedom of a cesspit of an industry to hook millions of Aussies?
Gee idk. We have to weigh the pros and cons here.
What’s even the point of a life in politics if you want grasp big moments like this? Yeah a few are crooked as hell, but most backbenchers have a shitty enough job that is going nowhere they must have some motivation right?
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
I think it’s tempting to try and be pithy but freedom is complicated. For some people freedom is an absolute, do what you want when you want. For some it is about theoretical possibilities, for example if you ask if people are free to quit there job the answer heavily depends on how someone balances theory vs practice. Others take a practical lens, freedom only counts if it’s plausible to do.
Sometimes freedom is about ideals. you are free to read all the political theory you like, you umm wont because it’s boring but if someone threatened that would you be upset? At other junctures freedom because pragmatic, “what use is freedom to read if I don’t have freedom to eat? I’ll trade one for the other” someone might say.
Some people rate permissions more than restrictions, some the opposite.
I don’t think it’s a concept we can really pin down. Everyone has their own interpretation and it’s not universally values: much as dominant ideologies often insist it is, the rise of fascism should hint that others care much less about it.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 5 months ago:
Sigh, I’ll wade into this river of shit.
Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism, which is an ideological descendant from classical liberalism. This ideology positions itself as being broadly in favour of individual freedom within a rather tight definition of freedom. Namely liberals are concerned with the ability of people to read what they like, own what they like, marry whomever they like and so on provided they do this inside of a system of capitalist free market exchange.
Modern liberalism tends to frown on heavy government intervention in market affairs, which they see as representing the free (and thus good) exchange of goods between individuals. They also tend to be broadly in favour of the militaristic western global hegemony.
Criticism of this attitude comes from 2 places.
-
too much freedom.
-
not enough freedom.
(1) is people that want women bound up in the kitchen and walk around with an odd gate that makes you remember Indiana Jones films
(2) are people (I’m in this camp) who see liberalism as a weak ideological position that favours stability over justice and, in so doing, ignores the suffering of billions.
-
- Comment on Young Australians falling down a 'rabbit hole of hate', ASIO boss warns 5 months ago:
ASIO director-general Mike Burgess says Australia’s terror-level threat has been raised to “probable” due to a rising mix of ideologies where more people think “violence is permissible”.
What an asinine phrasing. Basically everyone except the Jains think that violence is permissible. Mike Burgess certainly thinks it is.
Where people disagree is over when, the degree, by whom, and to whom. This gross liberal idea what when the cops throw a climate protestor to the ground and pepper spray them, that is wholesome non violence. But if a climate protestor throws a brick through a window that is scary, evil, bad violence is part of how society stays so broken and alienating.
I’m probably much more towards the non violence spectrum than your average person. For instance it absolutely disgusts me that we permit police torture implements that would be illegal in war. Your average person is quite bullshit on those, and that police are allowed to escalate violence by upgrading charges through resisting arrest. So don’t take this as an endorsement of violence against people. Just that if we ignore how violent the status quo is we don’t get to act surprised when it produced violent resistance, even if most of those people want something much worse.
- Comment on There is a cheaper alternative to supermarkets, but most people don't know it exists [It's shopping cooperatives] 6 months ago:
I feel like I’m missing out…
- Comment on There is a cheaper alternative to supermarkets, but most people don't know it exists [It's shopping cooperatives] 6 months ago:
Maybe, space and rental costs for the shop are pretty limited and pretty high. I sort of want to start my own but I’m a human garbage fire between the nerve pain and the depression making the fucking hard yards of getting started extra hard.
Idk what to really do. With the death of community hubs it’s really difficult to get enough of a group together it’s not a heroic effort generating interest and that sort of organising is not anything I’m good at or even really know how to approach :(
- Comment on There is a cheaper alternative to supermarkets, but most people don't know it exists [It's shopping cooperatives] 6 months ago:
Coops are so powerful. I tried to get involved in our local ones however they’re dying for (imo) really frustrating reasons.
Instead of leveraging their core strength, namely allowing poor people to collectively negotiate for fair prices while cutting out middle men, they are focused on everything to the max ethical hippy shit (amusingly the same busybodies pushing this also voted to make it not vegan anymore… wtf do you believe in?) so the result is they’ve become super bougie.
Instead of being a place where you can buy beans and rice etc at below supermarket prices while still giving the farmers a better deal it’s all organic biodynamic gluten free almonds and luxury teas. Don’t get me wrong, I love my fancy tea, but first and foremost it needs to be a place where you get your bulk calories/macros cheaper than the supermarket or at least comparable (obvs supermarkets loss lead on some stuff like bread you’ll never match).
Also fuck me for this opinion but putting food on the table of some working class people and taking power back from supermarkets and giant farming conglomerates does more good than serving organic teas to the 50 wealthy people in the area that can afford them. Survive first, improve from a position of strength.
- Comment on A person's home may be their castle but if they leave it vacant can they really complain if it gets taken away? 6 months ago:
Nah, private propery is a silly concept, especially when it’s essential resources.
We were all shocked and appalled at people hording masks, sanitiser, TP, food etc not so long ago. Sitting on TP you aren’t using while someone else goes without is absolutely trivial compared to a house/land.
Using a thing is part of what grants you rights to it. People deserve a chance to explain why something is unused, and if it is temporary they shouldn’t lose rights (e.g. medium term contract away from home, pending works, social obligations etc) but multiple homes and one vacant? Sitting on something to try make cash? Nah not yours anymore.
- Comment on Life expectancy in Australia has fallen for the first time in about 30 years 6 months ago:
Depression, anxiety, dementia and chronic liver disease are emerging as some of the fastest-growing chronic conditions.
Woooh yeah deaths of despair baby!
Society is going strooooong
All we’ve done is massively increase inequality, poisoned the world, taken an axe to social services, and let everyone get infected with a virus that causes cumulative brain and heart damage. Who could have predicted this?
I’m shocked, shocked and appalled I tell you.
I miss thinking the future was gonna get better but neoliberalism had entrenched itself so firmly in politics/APS/economics most people don’t even realise it’s an ideology and not fact, most of the contamination (plastics, pfas, agrichems) are long lived and we’re also dependant on them, and climate change is about to get mega spicy if the models are correct and Indonesian, Indian, and islander people are gonna be (rightly) demanding some of this continent’s habitable land.
interesting times ahead for us!
- Comment on Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says 6 months ago:
The giant corps are the ones massively involved in the black market :(
It’s probably not realistic to say no upside, as people usually do stuff for reasons even if it’s terrible overall. Like a bizarrely high proportion of people with schitzophrenia take nicotine so there probably is something it’s doing that helps in the moment.
There’s gonna be a market one way or the other. IMHO the government should step in to make it tightly controlled and low profit (if not nationalised). Also we should lynch everyone who’s ever taken a dollar of tobacco money but idk how broad support for that is.
- Comment on Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says 6 months ago:
Oh you’re that dipshit. Makes sense that you’re pearlclutching
- Comment on Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says 6 months ago:
This is completely off topic from what I was talking about with the other person, I really don’t know what you’re chiming in here for.
- Comment on Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says 6 months ago:
That is a separate issue. I’m trying to understand what their specific health concerns are, why it is they feel any amount of vaping represents an antisocial immediate health hazard distinct from say driving while unhealthy, tired or whatever or taking drugs known to increase violent tendencies like alcohol.
There is something they feel is different and I’m trying to unpick what it is. Like is there a specific chemical they believe even trace vaping exceeds safe limits of? a class like VOCs but are they also afraid to be around a stove etc? Is it fear of lack of regulations meaning unknown contamination could be present? Is it lack of precedent of characterised harms? (e.g. standing next to a stove while cooking seems about as unhealthy as being near most* vapes but we tend to be comfortable with poorly ventilated stoves and not with vapes because stoves are boring).
They unfortunately seem to thing my curiosity represents some hostility, despite having stated that I am in favour of regulation and basically just have a couple of quibbles with this law ¯_(ツ)_/¯
- Comment on Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says 7 months ago:
I will could you answer my question about fog machines though?
- Comment on Policy banning vape sales outside of pharmacies to go before Senate, health minister says 7 months ago:
For both of our convenience I would really appreciate it if you just listed the specific concerns you had in mind, along with a primary source.
If a primary source is too much because you believe something is “common knowledge” (e.g. asking for a primary source on why to look both ways before crossing the road is a bit pedantic) a relevant Wikipedia page about the immediate health concern would be fine.
Let’s exclude popcorn lung (diacetyl damage) for aforementioned reasons.
I’d also like to ask, are you concerned about fog machines which also make a vapour of vegetable glycerine? Or are your concerns limited to flavour compounds and trace nicotine exposure?