Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TA
Posts
2
Comments
844
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I would agree and disagree.

    You are right but I think "ignoring" "men's issues" harms the feministic cause and consequently the "dying of miscarriage" problem. As sad as it is PR is sometimes very important and e.g. the lie in the post doesn't help the PR and a lot of young men don't feel supported but attacked by the current framing of feminism.

  • I am also very supportive of women's rights but lying is not helpful.

    Honestly the point that it tries to make is not the point that it makes either. It could be understood as "let's ban abortion everywhere", and I don't think that is the point that it tries to make.

    I am in favor of bodily autonomy and I don't care what the law currently is anywhere, it should be a given.

  • If anything, your position is in opposition to nihilism.

    There are different kinds of nihilism. Your position is in contradiction with the "purest" form. The absence of an objective value in anything and everything. Your position clearly values personal consent.

    There are other kind of nihilism, like political nihilism, might not be in conflict with your position. On the other hand, existential nihilism, the belief that there is no inherent meaning/value in life, might seem to align with your position but I think it is difficult to argue in favor of consent, even to being alive, while believing that life is inherently meaningless. I mean, why does the consent of a meaningless being matter to anyone? Of course, you could take an adsurdism position to it but then I would argue that calling you nihilistic would be a mischaracterization.

  • As if the rhetoric of today has no influence on the rhetoric of tomorrow.

    But even in this very short sighted context, the conflation of "propagandised individuals" and "capitalist" is obviously toxic to the aim of archiving communism.

    I will take a wild guess that you have many friends who are raised in capitalistic environments and who have been exposed to anti communism propaganda. Some of that propaganda probably worked on them and consequently they are propagandised individuals. But I doubt you would call them capitalist and enemy. Ofc, you wouldn't as you would special plead for them, while happily supporting conflating propagandised individuals with capitalists and the enemy.

  • Thanks for proving my point. Your "us vs them" thinking caused you to confuse "propagandised individuals" with "capitalist" and ignore the big difference between both.

    "Capitalist" is a class that in communism doesn't exist. So consequently, after the implementation of communism there is no enemy of the class "capitalist" anymore. So again, communism would serve all people.

    "Propagandised individuals" wouldn't disappear after the implementation of communism. They can be discriminate against.

  • Asklemmy @lemmy.ml

    Do you dislike when someone laughs over their own joke? If yes, why?

    > Greentext @lemmy.ml

    this really happened.