I said something along the lines of:
“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”
Along with
“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”
In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.
…
Good ole’ civility clause.
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
.world mods have never heard of it I guess.
Ok, so there is actually more enforcing the inescapable systems that govern the vast majority of people’s lives than just ‘we all collectively agree that how things are going is how they should continue to go.’
Great. Glad you agree?
This all started with you just saying oh just all of society is made up so we can all just make it up into something different if enough people agree.
You say there are no rules that are written down (what are laws?) but there are traditions and habits and models (which can and mostly have all been described as informal rulesets).
This is infantile, incoherent nonsense, which I mock by using the same language to basically just say ah ok, let’s all just ‘make up’ something better than, oh wait no thats not how anything works.
Then you say there is no inescapable (literal?) machine that forces society to be one way forever, and that change is possible.
Sure great. Change is possible. Uh huh.
Then you say that actually yeah it really is just that everyone agrees on one way society should work and then they all agree to change it and it just happens. You consistently use the term ‘we’ as if people are all just an undifferentiated blob that collectively ‘decides’, somehow, to do different things.
No, societal change requires specific targeted actions directed by almost always an intially small but like minded people with specific goals and methods of achieving them, who figure out some means of obtaining enough power and enough additional people to force the currently powerful groups to either disband or acquiesce to their specific demands.
You are just taking a functional, representative democracy as a given, as an inviolable state of nature, where all that matters is the aggregate of what most people think.
This is demonstrably false, history is replete with examples of small groups of people either manipulating or overtly forcing others to act in certain ways, often for very long periods of time, and/or with extreme violence, deprivation and suffering, where the opinion of the common person has almost 0 sway on the course of history.
Anyway, now we arrive at this post where you do seem to now be saying that actually there are power dynamics and group dynamics and that actions actually do matter, and that things can change because they did before.
Wonderful.
You are full of empty headed optimism, bite sized high school history lessons, where everyone just makes decisions for no apparent reason, you discuss no motivations or material conditions or other factors that influence why things happen, why people decide, singly, as a small group, as a nation, whatever, to make certain choices, just, sometimes people do different things you do not expect.
I guess I am the idiot for engaging with you this far.
I am impressed that you’ve managed to bamboozle me thus far, I made the mistake of thinking you had something meaningful or interesting to say.
Yes. That is literally what society is. That “if enough people agree” is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting, but yes, that is exactly right, if that condition can be met.
Usually, it lasts at best until that small group of people dies, and then the whole thing changes. Sometimes them dying has little bits of assistance from the common people, Democracies are more stable, in general, because people have something to believe in that can span multiple generations.
Actually, I would say tyranny of small groups is the more normal state of human history, and democracies are more unusual and fragile modern beasts. They last a while, with the right maintenance, but they can be surprisingly delicate in some ways, and they’re difficult to put together again once they’re lost.
Yeah, probably. I did give some specific examples, like the late-1800s labor movement and the My Lai massacre. I alluded to the fall of East Germany, with the military being ordered to fire on protestors and refusing.
I didn’t mean to sound like I was saying it was easy to change these agreements people all have with each other that make it all operate, or anything like that. It sounds to me like thinking I was saying that is what got you so upset, and you’re now claiming that I’m changing my story. But my point wasn’t that it’s easy. My point was that it’s possible. That’s why I kept bringing up specific examples like the labor movement or the New Deal, where the whole fabric of society changed from one thing to another with sustained action over time. It’s happened. You can’t say it’s “empty headed optimism” if it has literally already happened, many, many times over the course of history.
Police procedures are not set in stone. They can change depending on who’s in government. Governmental structures are not fixed. Sometimes the whole thing comes crashing down, and people set up a new thing. Sometimes what comes after is better, and sometimes it’s much much worse.
You seem oddly hostile in response to a fairly mild comment.
Some people view the point of online discussion as to “win.” If what I’m saying makes sense, it’s a problem, because I might “win,” and so he has to go on the attack to prevent that, and regain the position of being the one explaining things, instead of the one being explained to, which is “losing.”