Chetzemoka

joined 2 years ago
[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Do what? Just saying "we'll have farming and transport" is not a plan.

I'm not saying there isn't any other way to accomplish food production and distribution. I'm saying that just overthrowing our current systems without an explicit plan to keep food on the shelves is going to result in regular working class people starving. That has happened in every revolution except the American, and that's because the American revolutionaries already had the Continental Congress in place making plans about how to administrate the country, if they managed to win the war.

But most revolutions were just pure chaos with no plan that resulted in regular people starving to death. I 100% agree we need new systems. But I'm not terribly interested in living through a violent revolution.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago (14 children)

Well, it better have some kind of mechanism in place to keep the grocery stores full or it's going to fail on its face.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (16 children)

Our institutions are not the problem, our policies are the problem. I want to see a transition to UBI, but a dramatic overhaul that dismantled WIC and SNAP before we got UBI in place would be an unmitigated disaster for the very people we were intending to help.

It's not the reform that I'm skeptical of. It's the lust for revolutionary destruction as a path to reform that I'm skeptical of. It's emotionally satisfying without regard to its actual efficacy in accomplishing the proposed reforms. Because history does not show us evidence that this works out well in the short nor the long run.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well they solved starvation by dramatically increasing it and then replaced old systems with new ones that have all those same old problems. So consider me unconvinced. I think we need to find a new way to change these systems that's more resilient for the future

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

By starving millions of them? Because that's exactly what transpired during most of those revolutions. And the long term outcomes have not turned out to be better for poor people than the American revolution was. Show me the ideal communist state that resulted.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago

And I thought it deserved every bit of the accolades haha. But that's fine. We like what we like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Eh, anything that becomes popular becomes divisive. Because it becomes popular to love it and also popular to hate it.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago (19 children)

Please show me where I said to do nothing. Why don't you try imagining new ways of improving things rather than repeating the mistakes of the past? Of the revolutions in the 18th-20th centuries, I think only the American revolution accomplished anything close to what it was intending. And that's because it didn't destroy all the existing institutions while in the process of implementing new ones.

(Not that I agree with what the American revolution was intending, but we did get mostly what they set out to do without thousands of poor civilians starving to death in the process.)

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

I definitely normally like weird fantasy movies and EEAAO was a deeply moving experience for me. I think you have to see that's it's not a sci-fi movie. It's a family drama that just happens to wear sci-fi clothing. And it's one of the best written family drama scripts in recent memory.

I also appreciated the message that nihilism is almost the easy way out. Optimism requires effort.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website -5 points 2 years ago (25 children)

All revolutions have hurt poor people the most.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 44 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No she was one of several women imprisoned under a new Alabama statute for "chemical endangerment of a fetus." You know, a "crime" that already can't be committed again by the time the imprisoned reach trial for it because of the way our "justice" system works.

Those women aren't allowed to endanger a fetus, but the all-knowing authorities are, apparently. (Yes, let's forcibly cold-turkey detox a pregnant person who was using. Great idea.)

view more: ‹ prev next ›