I hear you, is all I can say. I hope you find our way!

People want borders for exactly the same reasons you want a yard to do stuff in. You can direct that question right at yourself. Why do you want to have your own space? If someone comes along and tries to force you to give up your space, would you try to “get along” and just relinquish your space, or would you defend it? Why do you think you have more rights to that space than the other person? We don’t tend to like it but there is no ultimate law in the universe that says that people can’t acquire a space with violence.

You’re asking questions about human nature that you yourself are equally subject to.

I do get the frustration. Best solution I can offer is just working on the level of the self. Like I said, non-attachment. Read some philosophy. Look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism (also https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKUeOXz8J87Q9qi-YfBfkT1KlKyhdKhrj). That was the only way I was able to finally come to increasing amount of acceptance of reality without losing my will to try to have at least small positive impacts on the world while I’m here. Actually I’m more effective at it because it helped me significantly reduce endlessly chasing after pointless dopamine fixes and trying to get “more” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill).

Not that I disagree with the sentiment but you are veering close to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox

You can buy a piece of land in bumfuck nowhere and try to live off it. Or you can join a community that tries to do that (more realistic). There’s the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-grid thing

Problem is that most people want the conveniences of modern, globalist life, and many people don’t have a realistic choice.

Personally I try to find a balance between Buddhist non-attachment and making do with the life I got.

It’s a treacherous intoxicant. People love recreational outrage but for many people it turns into active, seething hate that colors every interaction they have. It’s the lens through which many view the world and it becomes self-perpetuating. People will have angry and hateful interactions with others, begetting more hate, begetting more hate, begetting more hate.

The fury feels good in a moment. Makes you feel strong. Find some like-minded people angry at the same things and you get to feed off each other’s rage. You’ll not only get more reasons to hate, but you’ll feel justified in the hate. You are in the right. The others are wrong. How dare the others be wrong. You must hate them because they are evil. See how they respond to your hate with more hate, further proving how justified you are in your own hate. It warms your chest, it rushes through your veins like the best alcohol you can imagine and you’re not feeling so helpless. It makes you feel like you’re accomplishing something. It masks the feeling that you are just one, small person faced with an impossibly complicated world, that is often filled with incredible injustice. It keeps you from realizing that you’re a tiny little cog in the same machine that causes both all the suffering and all the joy in the world. It tricks you into thinking that you are both apart from the world, yet powerful enough to impact it.

Every hateful comment you leave adds more hate into the machine. Every act of kindness adds more kindness. But hate is easier. Kindness feels weak. It’s vulnerable. It’s fragile. Even if you’re kind, the hate that others keep adding may reach you and bite you. Most people can handle having their teeth kicked in only for so many times. It’s easier to shut down and hate. But that doesn’t mean that commitment to kindness is impossible. It’s just harder.

And so it goes, and so it goes.

Tell me you had a certain experience without telling me you had a certain experience.

Were you taught to not talk in certain terms about how your world “shattered”? Because I was.

I’m not cheering for “Might makes Right”.

If you value dialogue, and if someone who doesn’t decides “Might makes Right”, you’re going to have to be “mighty” enough to at least defend your values. Else, your values will be stomped out. Or as I said, you need to accept the consequences of surrender (or absolute pacifism).

I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong in this, just pointing out the logical consequences.

War is never desirable, but this does not make pacifism a virtue. Rather, peace must be guaranteed by strength

Yeah.

Once someone decides that Might DOES make Right, everyone is in that game whether they like it or not. Of course one can totally surrender, if they are okay with the consequences of that.

That said, Might also does Make Right in the sense that those who wield power get to decide what “Right” is. It’s just that the more it departs from common human sensibilities, the more they have to wield Might to make it Right.

Sam Harris isn’t IDW nor alt right. You’re basing your comments on 7 year old memes, born from him failing the ideological purity tests developed by 13 year old Tumblrites.

This is so key.

I recommend reading Paul Bloom’s book Against Empathy. Compassion is the way to go, empathy is easy to weaponize.

Made me snort.

Not really all that interesting. It’s just the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox wearing the cape of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Without the fancy jargon, the argument is “All people must be free to do whatever they want (the paradox part they don’t say out loud is: except form a consensus)”

If you resolve the paradox, what you’re left with is exactly the same world we have now: everyone is free to do exactly what they want, including forming a consensus (that may restrict the freedom of the individual)

It’s a philosophical sleight of hand that’s easy to hide in grandiose and virtuous rhetoric. I’ve seen it often from the Libertarian Right, and I suspect so have others on Lemmy.

I recommend you check out analytic idealism instead:

https://philarchive.org/rec/KASAIA-3

This is one of the best and most ignored rules.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at with the sarcasm. You asked, I answered. My point was never that capitalism is good or necessary, but that it’s the system we’re currently stuck in and I suggested relatively low bar action individuals can take.

I’m not interested in discussing hypothetical worlds that woulda been, clouda been or shoulda been if not for them darn capitalists. I’m sure we could live in a completely egalitarian utopia if not for this, that and the other thing.

But we don’t.

If you have something constructive to contribute, feel free to do so.

Well, that’s exactly why I advocate for small actions on the level of the individual and branch out from there. I can’t make other people do anything. Least of all use their brain beyond their capacity.

Noted, you have successfully got me to edit my first post. I await the results of this revolution.

You are absolutely correct on all points. Now what do you propose we do about it?

You’re arguing with a straw man. The point isn’t that billionaires are the sole reason these things exist in some abstract sense - it’s that, in the world we actually live in right now, they control the levers that determine whether you have access to them at all. Nothing that we have right now could be possible if not for everything that came before it. So unless you invent a time machine, you’re arguing beside the point.

I might be misunderstanding you but there seems to be an assumption that I’m making the claim that the kind of modern life we have can’t be possible without capitalism. I am not. It’s completely irrelevant to me (and my point).

If people want to insist that a world like ours can be possible while resources are shared equally, great. I have nothing against making the attempt at that, please do. But that’s not the world we live in right now. The world we currently find ourselves is the one where capitalism has made all the luxuries etc. possible, and we are very habituated to it. To the point that many people are reluctant to let any of that go, while simultaneously demanding for a systematic change. Hence the “can’t have your cake and eat it too”. People are demanding revolution but precious few have any actually actionable suggestions on how to bring that about. I’m suggesting things that anyone can do by themselves, as much as is possible for them. Doing those things doesn’t require that everyone agrees with you, because you start with yourself. It doesn’t require a massive systematic change, because again, you start with yourself.

If anyone has suggestions on concrete actions to take to bring about massive systematic change, please let me know. Let everyone know. But keep in mind you’d have to persuade people that it’s going to work and it’s a better system. Revolution is very easy on paper.

Claiming any of these things only exist because of billionaires is absurd. They take over and destroy.

But if they ‘took over,’ then by definition, the things that exist now - including the infrastructure you’re using to complain about them - exist because they allowed it. What you (and [email protected] ) have actually described is a world where billionaires are both all-powerful and completely irrelevant. That’s not a critique. That’s a paradox. And it’s a useful one because it lets you feel angry without actually taking any concrete action.

After all the Quanon stuff and the general population increasing their awareness of how conspiratorial thinking works, it’s weird to see “my side” use the same rhetorical tactics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_fascism&useskin=vector#Umberto_Eco

“Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.”

Great, all the better. Please do start building it again from scratch.