Aequitas

@Aequitas@feddit.org

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It is one thing when innocent people die in armed conflicts. That is bad enough. But it is much worse when innocent people are deliberately targeted. That is simply inexcusable and not the fault of the Netanyahu government. Hamas cannot claim to be resisting when its targets are not the groups or institutions that oppress the Palestinians. One can only come to such a conclusion if one adopts Hamas’ interpretation of who the oppressors are. Namely, all Jews or Israelis by virtue of their origin.

  I do not think we can agree on this. My view of humanity is fundamentally different from yours. Discussing normative principles is pointless. However, I find your attitude so cynical and appalling that I no longer wish to engage in further debate. I very rarely do this, but I have now blocked you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  My point is that you gloss over the suffering of innocent people while excusing the actions of the respective murderers, just as people on the other side do. Namely, as a necessary and inevitable consequence of the other leaders’ actions. You argue structurally against the innocent victims using the same logic as the supporters of the IDF.

  It is a reversal of perpetrator and victim to appease your own conscience. An exaggerated and thus dehumanising tribalism that draws legitimacy for crimes against innocent people from the crimes of another group of actors. It is a misanthropic and cynical logic with which any atrocity could be justified (which is, of course, done constantly around the world).

  Hamas and IDF supporters are equally malicious and disgusting. The murder of innocent people is always and fundamentally wrong. Leftists must reject and fight it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  What a dehumanising and despicable statement. The people murdered by Hamas did nothing wrong. Certainly nothing that could justify their deaths. They did not colonise anything either; they were simply born there.

  This conflict really brings out the worst in some people. On the one hand, they blame the murder of innocent people on colonialism, and on the other, on the alleged human shield tactic.

  This contextualisation, relativisation and, in some cases, romanticisation of human suffering is absolutely disgusting and must stop.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Those who deliberately kill innocent people lose the right to be considered the resistance. They should kill the fucking IDF. But not kids at a music festival or random civilians.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Except that the “Zionist infestation” is a fictional construct in this case. db0 is fighting ghosts.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Killing innocent people is never a legitimate defense. Actually, it is no defense at all, because these innocent people did nothing to Gaza or Hamas.

  An anarchist authority that chooses an authoritarian, Islamist, and reactionary organization as the hill on which it wants to die. It makes you want to bang your head against the table. What I see this much more as is a case of double standards. Because the IDF, which also kills innocent people, makes the same argument. “Oh, it’s just defense.”

  You still haven’t explained what is Zionist about calling Hamas Terrorist. You simply don’t like my opinion about it, so you stick that label on it. It’s intellectually lazy because it saves you from having to argue and allows you to rely solely on virtue signaling.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  What’s wrong with calling Hamas terrorists? They have randomly but deliberately killed innocent people. How else would you describe that?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  What do you consider to be an example of “obvious Zionism” on feddit?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Unfortunately, dbzer0 has not yet provided a consistent definition of Zionism, which is why they always resort to the broadest possible interpretation. As a result, it is essentially impossible to differentiate between the IDF and feddit.org (or at least their ideology), which is obviously stupid, but has the advantage of simplicity. One can simply throw the word around and everyone nods dutifully.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  1. That’s not true. A lot of users have spoken out against defederation. Just look at the top comments here. There is no way you can speak of a “consensus” as the admin of dbzer0 claims.

  2. It’s completely ridiculous to accuse feddit.org of being Zionist because particularly militant anti-Zionist forms (“Death to Israel”) are not allowed there. This line of argument is inconclusive and makes the classic conversion fallacy. But more importantly, most people on feddit.org are very critical of Israel. For example, I never read that anyone seriously denies that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Even if it did happen, it would be criticized immediately. They probably just don’t do so with the radicalism that is represented on dbzer0. Instead of concluding that there is at least a large overlap here, that the people on feddit.org are not only not allies, but in fact enemies (“fascists”), is so ridiculous that I can hardly believe that this is being advocated by adults. Yes, there have always been these stupid left-wing purity contests. But I think this reaches a new level of stupidity here.

  I can’t stand this anymore. There are actual fascists who want to destroy both the users of feddit.org and dbzer0. They won’t care how purely anti-Zionist the person in question is. They’ll hang us all equally if they get the chance. But instead of uniting, we are creating new hostilities between us.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure, but it still reinforces the neoliberal view of humanity and ideology by affirming them. And what about all the millions of women who have not made any great scientific or other achievements and never will that did not have children by the age of 24? Have they failed in life?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  That is a capitalist, neoliberal attitude at best. It is particularly popular in the USA, where children are taught to evaluate reality in quantitative terms. It is extremely important for US capitalism to promote this view of humanity, because it legitimizes the major social hierarchies in this society. It also legitimizes why children are allowed to go hungry, the poor are denied medical care, and other countries are exploited. After all, they are not worth it, otherwise they would not be in this situation. In the worst case, it is therefore the basis for right-wing ideology in the USA.

  But ultimately, it is a normative decision that everyone makes for themselves. I cannot convince you with arguments. If you believe that people are fundamentally worth different amounts, then probably no argument can convince you otherwise. I can only say that I am glad not to have anyone like you in my circle.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t like this logic. It implies that a person’s value depends on their achievements. The only difference between the two is what the most important achievements are. Ultimately, this reinforces the right-wing logic that there are people of different values.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  For some oligarchs in Russia? Great. Yes, it’s unfortunate for ordinary Russians. But those on top are certainly very pleased with the situation. And for American and European capitalists, the reconstruction of Ukraine will bring great business opportunities as well. Big Capital is happy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh sweet child

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  We do not have infinite resources, but we certainly have far more than we need to cover at least the basic necessities of life for everyone. Capitalism, due to its internal mechanisms, will always lead to scarcity. And this is not socialist folklore, but the consequence of how the system works. The entire structure of capital as private property, owned only by a small fraction of all of humanity, means that the capitalists get most of the wealth generated through the economic activity of the overwhelming majority of people. This alone creates scarcity, because a large amount of resources ends up in the hands of a very small number of people. But that’s only one side of the coin. The scarcity created by capitalism is completely irrational in many respects (even if it is perfectly rational from the capitalists’ point of view). A few examples:

  • Destroying perfectly good products to prevent them from being used for free. A well-known example is the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which saw a huge destruction of food to ensure prices remained stable for fruit and vegetables; 60% of withdrawn food was destroyed
  • Planned or artificial obsolesce. A wonderful current example is Microsoft’s update policy. If it weren’t for Linux, I would have been forced to throw away my current PC because there are no more security updates for Windows 10, but Windows 11 doesn’t run on it.
  • Environmental destruction. One of the clearest examples of artificial scarcity is how capital is significantly damaging the environment, for instance by polluting fresh water, which creates investment opportunities for capital to come in and clean up the mess, rebuild water infrastructure, and so on.
  • Time. Despite all the new technology and labour-saving devices in our lives, we still work long hours, spending more time working than a mediaeval peasant. The scarcity of time is a major factor in many people’s lives.

  Moreover, scarcity is a necessary precondition for making profit (since things that are abundant cannot properly embody much exchange value). Take housing, for example. Here in Germany, and certainly everywhere else, rents are rising. The neoliberal government’s solution lies in the private sector. But this sector will never build enough to eliminate the scarcity. Because without it rents would fall (which would be good for us), meaning that the investment would yield no or less profit (which would be bad for the capitalists). Scarcity is the prerequisite for profits and that’s precisely why it will always exist in capitalism. No matter how efficient or productive we get or how much we work. It is at the heart of one of the basic contradictions of the capitalist system: that artificial what is irrational to us is completely rational from the point of view of the capitalist class.

  The consequence for us, however, is that we are now forced to compete for scarce resources. From an individual perspective, it is then disadvantageous to cooperate with others, as they pose a threat to us. Suddenly, what you represent, namely a need for hierarchies, becomes at least a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully, we can agree that under such circumstances, we cannot really say whether this behavior is natural or not. My experience shows that in situations without hardship, people are much more inclined to treat their fellow human beings (and, frankly, other living beings) well and show no need to dominate others.

  I think the mistake in your thinking lies in a naturalistic fallacy. You start from the status quo and draw conclusions about the natural state. Hierarchies, society, and scarcity then become something we cannot change. The result is a legitimisation of the status quo through naturalness. And I would say that this is the result of many decades to centuries of capitalist ideology, to which we are all exposed at almost every moment of our lives.

  I don’t think we can agree on this. But I want to encourage you to at least consider that what we have learned and taken for granted throughout our lives could be, as Marx put it, more appearance than reality.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  people have three natural postures regarding hierarchy in their group: To compete for leadership/status, To follow the leader, Apathy.

  What makes you think that? And don’t start with the monkeys again.

  The reality is that we can’t really say anything about human nature. Analogies to other animals or idealising the status quo as a natural state don’t help either. We live in a capitalist society that makes it necessary to compete with others for resources. Therefore, we must also expect this behavior to manifest itself. Of course, this tells us nothing about human nature, apart from the fact that humans tend to adapt to their circumstances.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What does the social behavior of mandrills have to do with that of humans? There is a reason why zoology and sociology are two very different fields of study. If I want to know something about humans, I have to look at humans and not draw conclusions about humans from non-humans. People who equate the two are, at best, essentialist in their reasoning and, at worst, social darwinists. In any case, it contradicts empirical evidence, which speaks much more in favor of contingency as a fundamental social principle. If I want to derive a biological statement from this, then at best it is that humans seem to be adaptable.

  I stand by it: most people neither want to be dominated nor dominate others. Such things are a result of circumstances such as the scarcity of resources or the ideologies that are hegemonic in a society. As evidence, I refer to the countless human communities that have no hierarchy whatsoever and would not function with one.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There is no such instinct.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I would say that almost no mammal does that if it has alternatives. Especially when resources are distributed in such a way that there is enough for everyone. Cows in a pasture don’t attack each other. Why should they? But this applies above all to humans, who are capable of reason. That’s why we have created systems such as democracy, which are enormously de-hierarchical. That is also why there is no right-wing democratic tradition. They will always attack democracy because it creates equality where, in their view, hierarchy actually belongs.

  What kind of dominance exists in normal circles of friends? Do people fight over who gets the most pasta? Of course not, because they prefer to be considerate of everyone else. Circles of friends do not function according to a logic of dominance. They function through negotiation, empathy, and mutual recognition. Why not build society in the same way?

  Violence, subordination, and rigid hierarchies are not laws of nature, but rather the result of social circumstances. They usually occur where there is scarcity, which today is mostly artificially created, or where inequality is ideologically justified. Where people experience firsthand that cooperation works better than competition (like in friendships), the logic of dominance loses its appeal. And that is precisely what authoritarian ideologies fear.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Discussions about human nature are always difficult, as humans cannot exist in a natural state. They are always culturally integrated and completely shaped by their culture. “Every fool,” as Emma Goldman put it, “from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?”

  Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism “stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” For ”freedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.” (Red Emma Speaks p. 73)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This has nothing to do with hierarchy. Someone who is extremely intelligent and educated gains a lot of social status. But that has nothing to do with hierarchies. At least not necessarily. For example, I don’t think anyone feels subordinate to Eminem just because he has a lot of social status.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This is surely how they argued in the Middle Ages when it came to justifying the different estates.

  I don’t believe that hierarchies are something inherently human. You don’t seek out hierarchies in your normal environment. Very few people do. And those who do are usually not very popular. You don’t want to subordinate yourself or dominate others. We are all only human, after all. It’s just that we live in a society that is hierarchical, and therefore it seems normal to us. In fact, however, this order can and is only maintained through violence. That cannot be natural.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Some groups are hierarchical and others are not. My group of friends, for example, is not hierarchical. My partnership is not hierarchical either. So human social groups cannot be described as inherently hierarchical. Perhaps it is necessary to entrust people with tasks. But temporary, democratic delegation of responsibility is something different from social hierarchy.

  This applies to economic hierarchies such as those between the working class and the owner class, but also to social hierarchies, for example through patriarchy, racism, and other forms of discrimination. If you believe that hierarchy between people is natural and therefore worth stabilizing, for example, that men should call the shots in relationships and in society, or that it is right for the majority of society to work, while a small minority does not work but becomes rich from the labor of the majority, you are advocating a right-wing view of society.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Left and right are misleading terms that originate from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. Roughly speaking, left and right can be distinguished by the fact that those on the right approve of social hierarchies and want to maintain them, while those on the left want to abolish them. A supposed middle position would be “only some hierarchies are good.” But that is also just a right-wing position.

  That is why there is no “middle ground” in anarchism. Either you want a system in which everyone benefits equally, or one with a clear capitalist hierarchy. Either everyone has one vote, or the weight of the vote depends on wealth. Either we consider the freedom of all to be important, or only that of those who have enough capital. Either no one is dominated, or only those who have to sell their labor.

  There is only either/or here. Those who do not consider all people to be of equal value consider some to be more valuable. This is not a spectrum; rather, the difference lies in very fundamental normative decisions.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a Twitter alternative in the Fediverse where you can sort your timeline?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Didn’t know that, thanks!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is there a Twitter alternative in the Fediverse where you can sort your timeline?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Thanks, yes, that’s helpful. Although not exactly what I’m looking for :)

• Is there a Twitter alternative in the Fediverse where you can sort your timeline?
  Submitted ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨fediverse@lemmy.world⁩ | ⁨7⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You've probably met someone who has killed a person⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Significantly more likely if you live in the USA. Not so much in the rest of the world.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨In wake of Windows 10 retirement, over 780,000 Windows users skip Win 11 for Linux, says Zorin OS developers — distro hits unprecedented 1 million downloads in five weeks⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This sounds similar to the debate surrounding meat substitutes. Most people don’t give up meat because they don’t like the taste of it, but because of animal suffering or the environmental impact. The same is likely true here. The problem isn’t the Windows UI, but Microsoft’s behavior as a company. For most people, the purpose of switching is likely to be things like greater freedom, privacy, independence, or a general rejection of proprietary software and big tech. Plus, there’s the large group of people that Microsoft is trying to force into throwing away their perfectly functional PCs. In very few cases are these users likely to think that they dislike Windows itself. If Zorin’s look and feel helps them achieve the switch, then that’s great.