Killing is easy, it's an instant decision but crossing borders can take a lifetime, and in most cases people never reach ashore/across.
Also, it's always "I would kill for my child", not "I would take a job at a health insurance company, denying the claims of people who need health care to live for my child". Always the big dramatic moment, not the mundane daily dreary murder by increments using statistics.
Fr. Indirect violence is so normalized nowadays.
Taking a job at an evil company for your children is not remarkable. It's Tuesday.
men in particular say this all the time, too
"i would kill for my wife" would you do the dishes for your wife? the laundry?
it’s easy to talk about sacrifices you’re never going to have to do, especially when they make you sound so badass
but actually doing stuff to improve people’s lives around you is much harder than just talking
"I would die for my wife"
How about living for them instead? Dedicate your life to them while it's still valuable.
Too much work, dying is one and done. Easy, really.
Something something no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Dying literally is doing nothing.
For years my wife and I have talked about who would outlive the other and we both constantly say the other will (it's pretty damn sad to think about going on without each other). Very recently I changed my thought process and would prefer to live longer, if only to spare her the pain of going through that feeling of loss.
Hell, how many would choose not to kill for their wife? Say someone sexually assaults her and she doesn't want her husband to kill the perpetrator. Because, I've been in a similar position (no opportunity to actually enact the violence though) and I suspect a lot of these men wouldn't. They aren't wanting to kill for their wives, they're wanting to kill to maintain their sense of safety and self image as a protector.
In such a scenario, the will of the victim is paramount. As much as my rage that my wife had been harmed would motivate me to go full Punisher, her desire to not lose my to a prison cell or the grave would make her tell me to allow the justice system to work. I would follow her wishes but anything I could do that wouldn't taint the evidence needed to convict I would do.
Absolutely, I think humans want the honor of spectacle and not the labor of the mundane
Especially in an age of spectacle and shallowness.
Violence is fetishised in the US
Too many losers think action movies are documentaries
I do.
In fact I do most of the chores in my house because my wife's hobby requires frequent absences.
In my opinion "I would cross border for better life for my children" is looked down because it lacks "patriotism" or whatever the call pointless nationalism nowadays. Personally if my country was in any danger of being invaded, you can find me and my family at the border faster than media can send their crew there to film it. And I say it while my country borders Russia.
To be fair, how often would you need to kill someone to defend your wife? Dishes and laundry on the other hand, you have to do on a daily basis. Do the math.
In loving relationships it's mutual. Wifes would probably also kill for their husbands. The division of labour would also be split somewhat equally.
When one would do labour or killing depends on context. I'm more likely to accept some labour on request from my spouse, than i am to accept an order to kill their enemies. But we are still honest when we say we would kill for eachother. When it would make sense, in some extraordinary situation, that is. I don't expect that hypothetical situation to ever come up though.
My parents tell me they love me unconditionally, but only if I fit their expectations, which I do not.
I'm with you on that one. I'm still grappling with attempting to be their good son but also trying to accept myself for who I am right now.
Good luck, my Fedifriend. Take things one step at a time. You aren't alone.
There is this saying that is misinterpreted.
blood runs thicker than water
People saying this mean to say that family bonds are more important than friendships.
But it's incomplete. The full expression:
blood runs thicker than water from the womb
Meaning blood bonds, friendships, are stronger than family connections, the water from the womb.
I have a brother who votes for a conspiracy right wing party. My mother keeps spreading racist slurs and follows right wing populists and media. My father is more like me, but is afraid to get into conflict so he always takes my mother's side.
I told them, after countless chances, I'm done with them. I broke off all contact, with a long explanation without convictions, attacks, blaming or what so ever. Just explaining I feel hurt by how I feel treated and I feel helpless as any form of conversation ends in full scale attacks onto me, blaming me for everything, calling me a child in its puberty (I'm 39) who never takes responsibility (while I always take full responsibility for my actions, while they have never done so).
I'm happy with my group of honest and deep friendships. I don't need my family. They wrote me out of their will. I don't care. I don't need anything from them anymore. I'm surrounded by amazing and loving people, while they are going to die sad and alone.
People saying this mean to say that family bonds are more important than friendships.
That is how this phrase has been interpreted since the 12th century.
But it’s incomplete. The full expression:
blood runs thicker than water from the womb
This version comes from "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb". A couple of writers in the late 20th - early 21st century made the claim that this was the original phrasing; however, they did not cite any sources to back up this claim. See details in the Wikipedia entry.
Ok sure, but it doesn't change my point. I can also understand that in certain cultures and in history your family is all you have. But in these days they are just people you cannot chose, just like colleagues. Friends however, are people you meet and connect with because you are similar. These bonds are much stronger than someone that shares some DNA with you. Doesn't mean you can't have strong bonds with family too, but it's not a given they are always the strongest connections you have. In my case, and in the case of some of my friends, family members are just a disappointment while my friends and I have unconditional love for eachother and are even there through the hardest times. While my parents just concern themselves for me just not dressing the way they like and not having the career and education they wanted me to have, therefore judging me and pushing me away. Especially in times I need support instead of judgement and resentment.
Sure, I've heard that referred to as your "logical family" (as opposed to your "biological family" ). I have estranged family members, too.
What's interesting is HC Trumbull's contrast with the Arabic concept of blood being thicker than milk (from the Wikipedia entry) which seems to be closer to your meaning. I'm not sure if this is referring to people who have fought together or if it's some kind of "blood brother" ritual, though. Unfortunately, in English the word "blood" is used as a metaphor for family.
In my case, and in the case of some of my friends, family members are just a disappointment while my friends and I have unconditional love for eachother and are even there through the hardest times.
I'm glad that you've found friends like this. I don't understand the appeal of unconditional love, though. I expect that if I turned into a horrible person, my friends' love for me would go away, and I wouldn't think any less of them for that.
It seems like your love for your family is conditional upon them not being assholes. I think that's completely reasonable and appropriate, but why have unconditional love for your friends but not your family? If your friends started treating you the same way your estranged family members have, wouldn't your love for your friends also cease?
Maybe I'm missing something important about love here. This seems likely, because a lot of people hold the value of unconditional love in high regard and act as though its goodness is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained. Perhaps you could tell me how I'm wrong here.
but why have unconditional love for your friends but not your family?
Years and years of mental abuse makes the love for your family go away.
My friends are not like that. I know them deeply.
You avoided my bigger question.
Love should be conditional. It should be reciprocated.
Years and years of mental abuse makes the love for your family go away.
Right. Because your love was conditional. Which is a good thing. You loved them; they abused you; you quit loving them.
What am I missing here?
The version of the expression I've heard is
The blood of the covenant runs thicker than the water of the womb
And it’s also total BS. This was never the expression until someone tacked it on recently.
Why would you just repeat some bullshit you heard somewhere without looking it up?
As not one of "the golden children" sometimes it's best to just focus on your (or you own families) happiness.
Mine said that a lot but it turns out one never cared at all which I kinda knew and the other decided I was not the kid they wanted and so deserved to die on the street that's the one who I think died on the street a couple months ago so that's equal parts amusing and sad
The only thing that will ever love unconditionally is a dog.
Yes, and that's a good thing for you. But is it a good thing for the dog? I've known dogs with very abusive human companions.
This is why I don't understand why unconditional love is put up on a pedestal. The person that you love unconditionally could fall, hit their head, and become a completely different person who now treats you horribly. Should you still show them that same love?
Good for the dog? No Are they bred that way intentionally? Yes, thats why dogs are man's best friend. Loyal and forgiving. If humans wanted a friend with agency they'd get cat's 😆.
I agree with you. I never believed in unconditional love. In fact i think the idea ruins relationships because ppl stop trying to improve. "No just love me as I am im perfect la de da".
Well yeah, it doesn't involve them getting to kill someone
They just like the thought of killing
In the US it's not that dramatic of a statement. We would kill for a better parking spot.
Yes that's basically what I said. The society is based on sociopathic and psychopathic thinking.
It's the same people who love Trump if he were to shoot some one on Fifth Avenue.
But would hate him if he gave people the COVID vaccine on Fifth Avenue
Nah they would flip around and justify the second scenario in their heads. Just like they are defending him for high gas prices after blaming biden for high gas prices.
i think a lot of these people would love to kill, for whatever reason, even for their children, who they otherwise treat as possessions.
Away with thee walldoms 🌬
Dissolve the beatling 🧼 ❤
Birth hives of samhold 人人
I still don't understand most of your new/revived words but I support the sentiment I can guess (no more borders, humanity as one, something like that?)
I expect that people dont understand. I just try to express what feels true to me using words that makes sense to me. Feel free to ask what I mean with my words if you are curious. There's no shame.
Walldom is a relighting of territory. Its a relighting that emphasize how might sets up arbitrary walls or borders which they claim authority over.
Beatling is a euphamism for heart in that it is something that beats. The heart is a symbol of the center of something, in this case the heart of the walldom. So beatling is the heart of the walldom.
I thought walldom would mean border. Thanks for clarifying/enlightening the relighting!
You're welcome! Im happy to see curiosity:)
Violent racist boomer narcissism strikes again!
Cherish something and potentially sacrifice yourself for it?
No.
No, kill, main, destroy randomly assigned enemies, then tell your kids you did it for them, and they're ungrateful if you do not worship their hateful bloodlust!
The people complaining about the border crossing thing are logically equivalent to the people getting killed for somebody else's children, rather than the people doing the killing for their children.
So that tweet is not a like to like comparison and it IS logical that some people both and at the same time would kill for their children AND dislike people crossing borders for theirs - not the same side of the action and not the same kids.
The beliefs of the anti-immigrant crowd are Logical if they genuinelly believe that the downsides of immigration for themselves outweigh the upsides. Where these beliefs are open to dispute is in the truthfulness of the "information" which they used to reach the conclusion that immigration is bad for them and in the Ethical and Moral aspect of how they think immigrants should be treated.
PS: And I just want to add that it's a personal peeve how the whole Immigration subject has been reduced (probably by slimy Politicians and Think Tanks) to one-dimensionality by both sides of the Identity Politics theatre in broken "Democracies" and then parroted by unthinking simpletons, when even putting the whole "should there be nations and borders or not" aside, I can think of at least 3 different Moral principles that should inform one's views on the subject of people from some other country coming to live in one's country: The Duty to Help those suffering (which yields the concept of Refugee), the Duty of a Host to invited Guests (which applies to the treatment of Legal Immigrants) and what is acceptable to do to uninvited outsiders (which applies to Illegal Immigrants who came to improve their personal upsides, not because of "suffering") all of which yield way more moral conundruns than the one-dimensional take (for example, how bad one's lot in life needs to be to trigger the Duty Of Help of others), introduces the question of were are the limits of one's capability to help (the Duty Of Help takes in account on how far one is capable of helping) and even introduces an additional Active element (should we activelly seek the worst off to help them?)
Without the slimy fake left (or just plain incompetent) politicians doing their loud performative "moralism" on top of the Think Tank created hyper-simplification of the subject of Immigration, the Far-Right would have way more trouble engaging people with their simpleton anti-immigration slogans, because for example only the worst of the worst kind of people would deny the Duty Of Help or the Duty of a Host to invited Guests - this shit should be discussed in the context of a Moral framework, not dealt with with sloganeering.
I think that your third principle has also been largely damaged as a moral question at least in America. "What is morally acceptable to do to an uninvited outsider?" In a lot of people's minds the answer is whatever you want. Things like castle doctrine have led to a "shoot first, don't bother asking questions, just assume the worst" ideology propagating through our culture.
Well, in all fairness that one specifically isn't really a principle and more of a slot were you fit one or more principles, for example the principles behind Human Rights and Justice.
But yeah, people for whom other people have no inherent rights and whose view in general of what is Just (and hence of Justice) reflects that, will have abhorrent ideas about what is acceptable to do to uninvited guests, so it is entirelly logical for somebody who thinks somebody entering their house uninvited should be shot to also think extreme force should be used against illegal immigrants.
However, my point is that even such people might be made to have a different views towards Legal Immigrants and Refugees if the take on the whole subject of Immigration also includes the Duty Of Help and the Duty Of A Host Towards Invited Guests.
As it stands now, such people are simply against "Immigrants" as one big blob.
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
