quacky
@quacky@lemmy.world
- Comment on if you're a landowner, then you defacto own the people on your land because people are categorically defined as existing in a time & place and you literally own the place so you own their existence 5 weeks ago:
Beingness isn’t defined by whether or not someone is on my (or anyone else’s) property.
Existence is defined in terms of space, and if you disagree, then show me something that exists that doesn’t occupy space.
- Comment on if you're a landowner, then you defacto own the people on your land because people are categorically defined as existing in a time & place and you literally own the place so you own their existence 5 weeks ago:
This would be funnier if it understood the argument. Instead this comment mocks what it doesnt understand
- Comment on if you're a landowner, then you defacto own the people on your land because people are categorically defined as existing in a time & place and you literally own the place so you own their existence 5 weeks ago:
No
- Comment on if you're a landowner, then you defacto own the people on your land because people are categorically defined as existing in a time & place and you literally own the place so you own their existence 5 weeks ago:
Nope
- Comment on if you're a landowner, then you defacto own the people on your land because people are categorically defined as existing in a time & place and you literally own the place so you own their existence 5 weeks ago:
All matter has attributes of time and space, like I’m writing this comment in September (time) on planet earth (space). If planet earth was owned by a country that I wasn’t a citizen of, then I probably couldn’t have made this comment because I would be floating in space, on another planet, dead, or something.
- Comment on if you're a landowner, then you defacto own the people on your land because people are categorically defined as existing in a time & place and you literally own the place so you own their existence 5 weeks ago:
ok so imagine someone is trespassing. If you use your property rights to exclude them from your property, then all the possible timelines of them existing on your property has been deleted. You have thus defined their being-ness. Even the phrase “someone is trespassing” is subject, verb, and adverb which is to say that 1.) a thing 2.) exists 3.) in a particular way. Therefore property rights are necessarily owning the existence of others and determining how they get to be in the world. You have essentially segregated a part of the world where they can no longer exist.
Think about the hypothetical where all of the land in the world is privately owned, assuming you too own a square chuck of land. In this world, your freedom to exist is limited to just your land. You are in essence imprisoned in your gridlocked land much in the same way a fish is trapped in a fishbowl. Now imagine you do not own land. Where would you go? You have nowhere to go. The floor under your feet has been ripped away so to speak. The carpet has been pulled under you. You do not get to exist as you are.
This is to say that land is a fundamental aspect of reality (space) that defines all people and things. i do think a re-evaluation of property rights is warrented considering it underlies all of “stuff” and matter and our very own existence
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 17 comments
- Comment on The entire teenage population is different every five years. 5 weeks ago:
holy shit you’re right en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDog
- Comment on The entire teenage population is different every five years. 5 weeks ago:
With undercover CIA android dogs
- Comment on The entire teenage population is different every five years. 5 weeks ago:
That is one of those statistics tbat take a long time to fully be cognizant and appreciative of because it is so intense
- Comment on O no 5 weeks ago:
Read “Caste: the origin of our discontents” and you’ll see that income stratification has always been about class, race, sex, and other arbitrary traits. There are “pink collar jobs” assigned only to women. I’ve witnessed anti-male discrimination in Direct Support & Nursing jobs for example and this is because that is not their “place” in the caste system. It’s not a rhetoric; it’s observation, evidence, and an accurate model of soceity
- Comment on O no 5 weeks ago:
Why
- Comment on O no 5 weeks ago:
Imo, it is because those jobs are gatekept for specific kinds of people. It is not about the difficulty. In fact, the more education, the easier the jobs get because the lowest class is assigned all the hard manual labor like farming, cleaning, etc. The credentialist system is designed specificaly for inequality and exclusion
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
The ideal is a very liberal one, tolerance of everyone. I do think it begins to be a problem where tolerance in of itself is in conflict. There does need a “do not harm others” baseline before tolerance. For example, I just had a conversation the other day about “armed groups” where the other person was in favor of militarizing against oppression, which is an intolerant position (War and warmongering is intolerance.) If my opinion is that I want you dead, it’s not an opinion or a view but an incitement to violence.
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
They planned their errand
That’s the problem if they didn’t consider the limitations. It’s a irrational expectation for the bus to be 100% efficient and always on time. Nothing is 100% efficient. It’d be a faulty expectation to assume that things (other than death, disease, aging, etc.) are certain or guaranteed.
not also deserve empathy?
Everyone deserves empathy. All sentient beings, including this hypothetical man.
Do all these other people not also deserve empathy?
Again, all people deserve empathy. It seems that you’re making this a binary, “either/or”, dilemma when I believe both the angry transit operator and the smoker are “not ideal”, though I do have a bias toward the anger because that is aesthetically uglier than the smoking.
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
Every moment and daily action would be rational and empathetic. Here are some scenarios I witnessed today. I’ll swap them to more ideal
Example 1 Real scenario: A train operator stops the train and yells at a man for apparently smoking at the train stop prior to boarding. The operator demands the passenger leaves for breaking the “no smoking before pickup” rule. The man is flushed red and has tears in his eyes. The operator is so convicted in their anger that they have no empathy.
Ideal scenario: The train operator does not take his anger out on others. He forgives the man for breaking the rule, as ultimately no one is harmed. The train operator uses his power and authority to ensure the man gets home safely. The train operator values the well-being of the man more than arbitrary rules because he is empathetic, forgiving, and kind.
Example 2 Real scenario: A homeless man boards the bus. He has heavy bags he wrestles with. The bus driver demands the homeless man to hurry up to sit down as the bus operator “has to go.” The homeless man obeys but is tangled in heavy bags and uncomfortable to cater to the demands of the bus driver
Ideal scenario: The bus driver is patient and allows time for the homeless man to sit down. The bus driver may even help the man with his stuff. The driver prioritizes their passengers safety and well-being over arbitrary things like timeliness.
Example 3 Real scenario: A boarding passenger of the train takes a big puff of their electronic cigarette and puffs it inside.
Ideal scenario: The boarding passenger throws away their electronic cigarette as it harms their well-being. This has the added benefit of not polluting the common air with toxic & addictive chemicals. … Meanwhile, all electronic cigarette companies had an epiphany and decides to not sell their products anymore as they realize it is killing humanity, and they do not want to profit off the sickening of their fellow humans.
~
I could give more examples but 3 is good enough.
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
You and I both resonate on the same fundamental truth, but I get the sense that you’re more actively wishing death, “I hope beyond hope that we fully die out”, where I am more so just paranoid and avoidant. I agree that that activists do thankless work. The phrase, “We are predisposed to be cruel,” sounds Hobbesian in that it presupposes that man is naturally cruel, though I never read Hobbes so I don’t know actually. I think people are naturally irrational, but not cruel per se. I think they are also great at adapting, which leads to a frog in boiling water situation; there’s a sort of natural adaptation to toxic environments without knowing how or wanting to fix it. I think you’re more so an intense “hate humanity” misanthrope while I’m more a “mistrust & fear humanity” misanthrope. Fight/flight, anger/fear, both are responding to the same perceived stress.
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
Because it has massive implications. When I leave my house, I encounter people and i can’t treat them equally. I have to be cogizent that they are batshit insane. I’m using colorful language for effect, and i recognize it’s ableist. I mean more-so that they aren’t’ rational or intellectually honest. However, it’s deeper than that because even when I’m home, i can’t engage with people online either because they are the same people ahahaha. So I’m naming my cat “realty” so i can pay attention to reality or maybe “Clarity” because in love (such as petcare) is truth and truth is clear.
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
Because I’m not insecure nor do i feel unworthy. If people disagree that’s their issue, again reconfirms the concept that they are insane
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
Maybe that would be a shower essay
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
That’s fair when considering other massive online platforms. I guess subconsciously I assume people are somehow less insane in real life than online, but the book “just how dumb are we”, facts in history, and other statistics show people are wackos universally
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
It’s a complete thought. Subject + verb.
- Comment on People are utterly insane 5 weeks ago:
I’m not saying I’m not utterly insane too. I am a people afterall. Considering that 99% of people are non-vegan, nearly everyone is like a flesh-craving vampire/zombie. That’s just scratching the surface as being a decent and intelligent person has more filters obviously. There are asshole vegans, so “not being an asshole” is another filter that groups many people into as well. I’d say majority of reddit/lemmy people are assholes.
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 28 comments
- Comment on negativity is probably destructive to relationships 5 weeks ago:
You and I are playing two different games. it seems like you’re trying to “take me down” while I’m just identifying your behavior patterns for the audience. False accusations, labeling & insults (e.g., troll, pathetic, incapable). These are all examples of emotional immaturity.
- Comment on negativity is probably destructive to relationships 5 weeks ago:
Each comment of yours fits the narcissistic style of speaking: Invalidation, blaming, emotional immaturity, you-statements.
- Comment on negativity is probably destructive to relationships 5 weeks ago:
yeah ok pal. Narcissistic talking style.
- Comment on negativity is probably destructive to relationships 5 weeks ago:
I was in a relationship like this and it was a PR nightmare because all our friends/family would think we are “fighting” like domestic violence when in actuality it was simple difference of opinion, like whether we should budget or what to have for dinner.
- Comment on negativity is probably destructive to relationships 5 weeks ago:
Nice dodge. No, i am just literate. I read books. I write papers. I could guess that you may be projecting.
- Comment on negativity is probably destructive to relationships 5 weeks ago:
Ok and who are you? Why should anyone care about whether you are convinced or not? Are you a bouncer at a private club?