Turns out cringe was life all along

3 - Participating in and commenting on the voting mechanism is just one bit of the overall development of political, social and cultural history.

What seems to be “normal” or “acceptable” or “possible” to a given person/part of a population, is the outcome of discourse and maybe more important: concrete options.

Tangible options to participate in something solidary that’s useful and provides meaningful participation, make left values and ideas soo much more credible and “in reach”.

IMO these options and experiences can at the moment only really be created from below. Neither corporations nor the government (any time soon) will provide the people with democratic economic solitutions, neighboorhood solidarity, labor organization, collective housing, social movements etc.

You are so much more than voters. You can organize the practical and ideological negation of the BS you oppose so rightfully.

Be it a better third option or leftshifting the dems, anyway the whole voting part of history will become more fun that way, too.

Oh I see

How often did ruling actors of any historic social constellation give up ruling by themselves?

May it be - just spontaneous thoughts here - that those beeing ruled over have to do the emancipation?

Nah but a fresh tick bite. This means I’m from the future

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

Subjective in this sense would mean everyone has their own singular way as opposed to “its the same/similar indepently of the person looking at it”.

“/similar”

Well my point is just it’s neither fully determined as in ahistoric rule nor random as in “changes all the time” or “everyone has their own singular definitions and concepts”. And in between there is the sweet spot of understanding, interpretation and development…

Objective and socially constructed isn’t a ‘hard’ contradiction.

Yes of course language evolves and so on, but in a given time(period) it needs to be interpretable more or less independently from the specific actor (a dictionary ensures this, even though it needs to be updated regularly).

In other words yeah sometimes language comes up with new stuff. If it would do it all the time, it wouldn’t function

This is a week analogy… french only works as a means of communication because it has internal rules that are objective (as in different people understand the same/very similar thing when hearing/seeing a symbol/word).

Singularity of experience is cool, but anything social requires communication/synchronization.

Even though gender is used as a box or definition people are forced to fit into (and this is bad), reducing human experience to a blackbox kind of singularity is a highly individualist take.

You can work on understanding each other without forcing anyone to fit into your definition…

Why would you add POV to this?

Dewindowed

Imagine the letter H and G would look similar. Now imagine there was a language that didn’t have the letter H. People who spoke that language would post: “Hot Dog” and then go like “aaaahahaha imagine God Dog, like a god thats a dog”.

Now add the fact that germans know and use the word burger regularly and do posess knowledge of the existence of different languages and that “burger” is an english word, thus pronunciation differs.

So I’d say no, not funny.

Then again I have laughed about and made jokes that made use of the similarity of burger and Bürger. But I guess the “rofl different languages”-element needs to be combined with smth more to qualify as a joke.

Yours, german giving german answers

This should be taken with a grain of salt, just as yours and op, but neuroplasticity makes arguments like yours shaky (well well well if this isn’t gonna turn out to be our old friend dialectics). If children just had a special environment, you’d find the physiological countepart. So unless it’s controlled for otherwise, you can’t make a one directional proof out of it

I think a neat way to put it is: Alienated acting/being is what’s left after you pretend you would not cooperate with other people.

Liberal ideology imagines every person as a autonomous agent “taking their own decisions”. Except you live in a cave and gather berries on your own, this is a radical misconception. In fact almost everything you do depends on other peoples doing and vice versa.

Alienation is the ideological and practical renouncement of this fact of beeing part of a social species.

If you deny this fundamental property of your beeing and doing, you end up with confusion and moral atrocities. And principally this goes “for both sides”.

Of course the war-stock-financed yacht is worse, but even in the case of a US-minimum-wage-financed banana the buyer profits from the exploitation of some dude in south america. If heshe has not developped a critical consciousness of the individualist illusion of liberalism, heshe won’t see it, cause “im not greedy I just want a fuckin 'nana”.

Alienation does not explain the vertical (quantitative) unfairness, the exploitation, but the general disconnectedness (qualitative) of humans from their social system, their history, each other, their work and themselves.

Well it has always been an illusionary personalization to call it greed. It’s a systemic imperative in a competitive system (compete or cease to exist). By calling it greed you pretend companies in capitalism could just be good christians or smth and the bad would go away.

Totally. I think it also shows that empathy is to some degree a subject to choice, which in turn is connected to one’s scope of action

Reminds me of one time I discussed egg ethics and the number system in europe with my fellow german student flatmate.

Our other flatmate was a syrien refugie and when he came in and we translated the subject he laughed - a whole lot. When he was able to speak after that epic laughter he just said “in syria its people in cages and you fight about chicken.”

Reality had been checked

Lots of points for gryffindor