▲ 448 ▼ consent rule (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 day ago by Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 child) Power is generally best off dissolved anyway. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago* (2 children) There's not a realistic chance of that happening. There is a realistic chance of consent laws being changed to allow very easy access to assisted suicide and other things. One is a minor change to existing law, the other is a complete transformation of society. One belongs in real-world discussions of governmental policy, the other in political theory. When discussing the very real problems with consent and power imbalance in our real world, "just dissolve all power," is not a serious solution. "Dissolve all power" is a good answer to the question, "what would an ideal society look like?" It's a very poor answer to, "how do we avoid coercion in our medical aid in dying programs?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 23 hours ago (1 child) This doesn't really have anything to do with what you said, other than some assumptions you seem to be making that I'd like to push back on. Mostly, just the idea that things will continue to work the way they have in the future. Which they will not. We are in full-blown collapse right now, and there are NO policy changes that will make a lasting impact or can stop it from happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 22 hours ago (1 child) I just don't find building castles in the sky to be particularly productive. Will our environmental crises require major reforms to society? Yes. But if you think a climate crisis is the ideal time to finally produce the socialist utopia you dream of, you're insane. Crises like these historically lead to totalitarianism and reduced social mobility. If your analysis doesn't start with, "let's start at the current state of the world and see how we can reform it," you're not being productive. We've been in this civilization game for 10,000 years. No one gets to start fresh with a blank slate. This is a relay race. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago You're right, but you're also missing my point. The time to be productive is long past. There is no reforming our way out of this. We will experience the worst possible scenario before any of this gets any better. It is far more productive to learn and practice resilience at this point. If an ideal socialist utopia is produced, it won't be something that any of us ever see, and we need to start getting a lot more comfortable with that idea, while also recognizing that none of it ever gets better without us right now learning the right things. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 0 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Sure, and there's not a realistic chance of reducing emissions to the point humanity avoids extinction either. We have to destroy capitalism anyway if we want our grandchildren to have a chance at survival. Why not abolish other involuntary hierarchies while we're at it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 22 hours ago (1 child) This all or nothing thinking is generally counterproductive to actual progress. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 7 hours ago "All or nothing thinking" is also known as a paradigm shift. Or a revolution, when it comes to those thoughts becoming political reality. Those do in fact happen and often make things better. I don't expect perfection. A society that prioritizes abolishing involuntary hierarchies is going to have a lot of issues. But it's going to be better for human survival than a society that prioritizes accumulation of capital. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago* (2 children) There's not a realistic chance of that happening. There is a realistic chance of consent laws being changed to allow very easy access to assisted suicide and other things. One is a minor change to existing law, the other is a complete transformation of society. One belongs in real-world discussions of governmental policy, the other in political theory. When discussing the very real problems with consent and power imbalance in our real world, "just dissolve all power," is not a serious solution. "Dissolve all power" is a good answer to the question, "what would an ideal society look like?" It's a very poor answer to, "how do we avoid coercion in our medical aid in dying programs?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 23 hours ago (1 child) This doesn't really have anything to do with what you said, other than some assumptions you seem to be making that I'd like to push back on. Mostly, just the idea that things will continue to work the way they have in the future. Which they will not. We are in full-blown collapse right now, and there are NO policy changes that will make a lasting impact or can stop it from happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 22 hours ago (1 child) I just don't find building castles in the sky to be particularly productive. Will our environmental crises require major reforms to society? Yes. But if you think a climate crisis is the ideal time to finally produce the socialist utopia you dream of, you're insane. Crises like these historically lead to totalitarianism and reduced social mobility. If your analysis doesn't start with, "let's start at the current state of the world and see how we can reform it," you're not being productive. We've been in this civilization game for 10,000 years. No one gets to start fresh with a blank slate. This is a relay race. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago You're right, but you're also missing my point. The time to be productive is long past. There is no reforming our way out of this. We will experience the worst possible scenario before any of this gets any better. It is far more productive to learn and practice resilience at this point. If an ideal socialist utopia is produced, it won't be something that any of us ever see, and we need to start getting a lot more comfortable with that idea, while also recognizing that none of it ever gets better without us right now learning the right things. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 0 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Sure, and there's not a realistic chance of reducing emissions to the point humanity avoids extinction either. We have to destroy capitalism anyway if we want our grandchildren to have a chance at survival. Why not abolish other involuntary hierarchies while we're at it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 22 hours ago (1 child) This all or nothing thinking is generally counterproductive to actual progress. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 7 hours ago "All or nothing thinking" is also known as a paradigm shift. Or a revolution, when it comes to those thoughts becoming political reality. Those do in fact happen and often make things better. I don't expect perfection. A society that prioritizes abolishing involuntary hierarchies is going to have a lot of issues. But it's going to be better for human survival than a society that prioritizes accumulation of capital. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 23 hours ago (1 child) This doesn't really have anything to do with what you said, other than some assumptions you seem to be making that I'd like to push back on. Mostly, just the idea that things will continue to work the way they have in the future. Which they will not. We are in full-blown collapse right now, and there are NO policy changes that will make a lasting impact or can stop it from happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 22 hours ago (1 child) I just don't find building castles in the sky to be particularly productive. Will our environmental crises require major reforms to society? Yes. But if you think a climate crisis is the ideal time to finally produce the socialist utopia you dream of, you're insane. Crises like these historically lead to totalitarianism and reduced social mobility. If your analysis doesn't start with, "let's start at the current state of the world and see how we can reform it," you're not being productive. We've been in this civilization game for 10,000 years. No one gets to start fresh with a blank slate. This is a relay race. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago You're right, but you're also missing my point. The time to be productive is long past. There is no reforming our way out of this. We will experience the worst possible scenario before any of this gets any better. It is far more productive to learn and practice resilience at this point. If an ideal socialist utopia is produced, it won't be something that any of us ever see, and we need to start getting a lot more comfortable with that idea, while also recognizing that none of it ever gets better without us right now learning the right things. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 22 hours ago (1 child) I just don't find building castles in the sky to be particularly productive. Will our environmental crises require major reforms to society? Yes. But if you think a climate crisis is the ideal time to finally produce the socialist utopia you dream of, you're insane. Crises like these historically lead to totalitarianism and reduced social mobility. If your analysis doesn't start with, "let's start at the current state of the world and see how we can reform it," you're not being productive. We've been in this civilization game for 10,000 years. No one gets to start fresh with a blank slate. This is a relay race. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago You're right, but you're also missing my point. The time to be productive is long past. There is no reforming our way out of this. We will experience the worst possible scenario before any of this gets any better. It is far more productive to learn and practice resilience at this point. If an ideal socialist utopia is produced, it won't be something that any of us ever see, and we need to start getting a lot more comfortable with that idea, while also recognizing that none of it ever gets better without us right now learning the right things. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago You're right, but you're also missing my point. The time to be productive is long past. There is no reforming our way out of this. We will experience the worst possible scenario before any of this gets any better. It is far more productive to learn and practice resilience at this point. If an ideal socialist utopia is produced, it won't be something that any of us ever see, and we need to start getting a lot more comfortable with that idea, while also recognizing that none of it ever gets better without us right now learning the right things. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 0 points 23 hours ago (1 child) Sure, and there's not a realistic chance of reducing emissions to the point humanity avoids extinction either. We have to destroy capitalism anyway if we want our grandchildren to have a chance at survival. Why not abolish other involuntary hierarchies while we're at it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 22 hours ago (1 child) This all or nothing thinking is generally counterproductive to actual progress. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 7 hours ago "All or nothing thinking" is also known as a paradigm shift. Or a revolution, when it comes to those thoughts becoming political reality. Those do in fact happen and often make things better. I don't expect perfection. A society that prioritizes abolishing involuntary hierarchies is going to have a lot of issues. But it's going to be better for human survival than a society that prioritizes accumulation of capital. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 22 hours ago (1 child) This all or nothing thinking is generally counterproductive to actual progress. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 7 hours ago "All or nothing thinking" is also known as a paradigm shift. Or a revolution, when it comes to those thoughts becoming political reality. Those do in fact happen and often make things better. I don't expect perfection. A society that prioritizes abolishing involuntary hierarchies is going to have a lot of issues. But it's going to be better for human survival than a society that prioritizes accumulation of capital. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 point 7 hours ago "All or nothing thinking" is also known as a paradigm shift. Or a revolution, when it comes to those thoughts becoming political reality. Those do in fact happen and often make things better. I don't expect perfection. A society that prioritizes abolishing involuntary hierarchies is going to have a lot of issues. But it's going to be better for human survival than a society that prioritizes accumulation of capital. permalink fedilink source parent
