Whenever you’re in such a situation: Everything credit card format is your friend

Means.tv has a weekly good news thing. Check it out!

Lots of points for gryffindor

Accepting it is a choice with practical consequences. We should work on understanding what is to change and how and focus on doing it.

Making prophecies about what “Eventually” happens is self handicapping, wich does not help :)

We don’t exist as a whole, wich is the political challenge I would like people to focus on.

I think in post religious thinking it’s not about “deserve”

Edit (cant properly edit on jerboa rn) … your base argument is right.

Of course your base argument - capitalist economy is ecolocically destructive and dysfunctional regarding the needs of the many.

“Until there is noone left to fulfill their orders” thats the kind of “justice” i’m talking about. Like, Homoestasis will put them down in the end. Justice will be served. But that’s deceptive satisfaction.

Don’t go down the “natural balance” kind of revenge fantasy. It only makes one comfy in passivist boundedness. Also the guy in the picture is far more likely do do just fine in a climate catastrophy than you. Gaia nature god lady won’t bring you any justice, at all.

Fatalism is in that mix, too. A very easy way to meet political complexity

Haha yeah I was about to say, this is a masterpiece of

*newspaper jumping on the absolutely least significant aspect of smth, just, and really for no other fucking reason, because it activates low stakes unambiguous morals

*everyone: preaching low stakes morals

Wel played everyone, you’ve won the simulator. Turns out you do have a message, you do tell the truth

100k drones a month?!

This is a surprisingly hight number :o. Then again saying this already feels stupid since the answer is probaby just industrial warfare or smth.

Even though this is true for like 90% of my thinking (that I can see when I try), so far I’m concinced this ist because I am a predominantly language-and-normal-grammar-rules thinker.

There are people that mostly think via associations of words that don’t have to be formulated/ cast into grammar.

And then there supposedly people mainly thinking in pictures or smth, without words.

Anyways for some people rubber duck mode reoresents a change in thinking method, I think

Never too late for a first time

The fight for hegemony is always a cultural one. Cultural workers positioning themselves in political conflicts, IS struggle for ethical-moral leadership. Here society fights out what interpretation of the social world is leading, and thus on the long run, which political alliance will be able to lead society.

“The Idea of the Yeti was long called bullshit, but now I got myself bigger shoes”

And “helping” is still a major understatement

“I imply therefore I comply”

Wait… so is it an implication or a complication?

Random wrong place I know, but dont wanna bother more people then necessary: Why cant i see upvotes/downvotes?

Ok imma try to get my point across one more time: There are two different layers of reality about the war.

Both layers contain meaningful information.

A bit of info in layer 1: The war is bad.

A bit of info in layer 2: Not all people see that.

We agree on both. Now my point is: We should understand the nuances on layer 2.

Your answer is: “Layer 1 has no nuances”

The war is not the same thing as the opinions about the war.

To influence the discourse, i.e. opinions, it’s better to understand the opinions specifically (“in nuances”).

To close the discrapancy between misguided public opinion and actual reality, we need to understand the opinions, not confuse its object with its (ideologically structured) representation.

Have you read that I said “of course they should condemn putin …”?

What I’m doing is not relativizing the invasion, but the opinions about it.

It’s a meta level. I’m not talking about nuances of the war, but nuances of political views. The article and the discussion is on that level.

I agree with your call for clear (and plain coherent/realistic) condemnation of the war. Nevertheless this should not be confused with analyzing how many and how and why people don’t see it that way.

Otherwise we give up a better understanding of what people think, which we need in order to find strategies to influence the discours on realities terms. (Reality meaning the reality of conciousness(es) about the war, not the war. That part we already agree on)