It is extremely bad

This is extremely brave

Dude Looks Like a Lady by Aerosmith

Yeah I can tell you have some experience in political spaces, most people online lose their cool talking politics, but you’re just firmly stating your position. Which I disagree with, and that’s okay! I disagree with people inside my own orgs all the time, sometimes loudly! The fact is its a very complicated system. And power is deeply entrenched. There’s nothing to be gained for the org that’s too “radical” to engage in mainstream politics, every city has a group or two like this. They can even have very good politics and analysis but you have to be able to build power, and frankly its just easier to talk a big game and collect dues payments or donations.

It seems to me that you’re at least a progressive, as you are reform minded and that’s great! That basically puts us on the same side of systematic injustice. There might be some issues we couldn’t reconcile but in my experience it doesn’t necessarily mean we couldn’t work together or even end up on the same side of a protest. Despite my polemics, I’m a through and through humanist. But I’m deeply skeptical of parliamentary democracy, not to the degree where I discourage voting, but I’m more concerned with educating workers and regular people than the politicians. I’m proud of the educational work we’ve been able to accomplish in the last year alone; it wasn’t long ago that democratic leaders were calling support for Palestinians a Russian misinformation campaign, now its one of the most pressing issues for the international working class. Not saying “we did that,” but we did our part in boosting the signal and cutting through the noise.

Anyway I very strongly do not believe lobbyists are necessary to democracy and I work to try and create a world where they wouldn’t be (although that’s not exactly the highest on our list of priorities, god knows.) But in the world as it exists today, these structures exist and that’s just a fact. I believe the work I contribute to is a necessary part of a healthy democracy, and you’re a reasonable person who believes that lobbying work is an important part of the system.

Today, the system needs us both to work together and part of that is having lively discussions and educating one another. Maybe some piece of what you said will stay with me or serve as a reminder some time in the future, and maybe the reverse also. We don’t have to be won over to each other’s ideas for them to have an effect. And we got all these other people contributing to the discussion as well. That’s pretty cool to me. So yeah we have a difference of opinion, but we are both coming from a place of education and experience, trying to solve the same problems from different ends of the same dynamic system. At least I hope that’s what’s going on here.

Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate you.

I volunteer with a few (American) political organizations and have connections to politicians and organizations. we have people who we elect democratically who are highly educated, highly motivated, and politically plugged in who talk with politicians all over the world all the time! We are in coalition with an elected politician who is a member of the Irish Daìl, which is like their house of reps, every day we talk with him and ask him questions, and his organization and ours trade information, ideas, articles, book recommendations, you name it. We’ve sent delegates to Cuba to meet with the President, and groups who oppose his government. Weve sent peoole all over the country and the world for political work and ive gotten to have some amazing experiences participating just a little bit in this kind of work. If people won’t talk to us we hold rallys and protests and make them talk to us. Similar to how you described, we pay dues, publish magazines and even participate in national and international debates. Our members have been on tv, podcasts, YouTube, and we are working toward creating our own. And that’s just one of the orgs I’m in, another has members in congress, and its not the GOP or the Dems.

So sorry, no, you’re wrong. Even if there are (purely hypothetical) cases where the system you are describing does work for people, there is no accountability to the people and it really only works to keep professional operators in Washington speaking on behalf of their own interests and the interests of the orgs that pay them. I know good people who are lobbyists, who lobby to do good things. But their position is in no way a political necessity. Grassroots bottom up politics is not only possible its the only way to have real democracy. The top down structures you advocate for only create and reproduce the conditions of exploitation, poverty, immiseration and war. Sorry friend, but I just dont buy it.

i wish that people had as vivid of imagination when thinking of ways to build a mass movement to fix the problems with our deeply dysfunctional “democracy” designed by and for the benefit of the wealthy 1%, as they did when trying to find excuses as to why every single part of said political system is totally irreplaceable and in fact is functioning perfectly within the best system possible.

A better world is possible, but it is up to us to change it.

Lobbyist

Paint and read, and do political organizing or volunteering. Maybe play some guitar if my hands aren’t fucked up with arthritis. Kick it strong with the grandkids. Probably some gaming too, my dad games quite a bit

Violence and nonviolence, in the face of violent, intolerant ideologies such as Nazism, or even colonoalism, is not as clear cut as it gets made out to be. I think primary arguments for violence are often misunderstood and taken out of context.

I don’t think it’s a moral question, as moral reasoning seems to lead to either 1. Violence is always wrong or 2. Violence is a moral imperative against certain enemies, for to do nothing is to permit and assent to the violence that they inflict. Neither of these absolutes are adequate within actual consequences, although both views definitely have to their credit historical circumstances where these strategies were arguably successful and progressive.

However i think there are important lessons on violence and nonviolence that can be learned from various historic examples:

1. Individual violence against individuals does not advance progressive goals. Individual violence merely strengthens the status quo against that violence, and can be used to justify mass violence of the state or militias against masses of people, usually a targeted minority.

2. Nonviolence tactics can be effective against state or military repression, but state and military roles in genocidal campaigns, or participation in extrajudicial violence shows that otherizing is effective at dehumanizing, and in order to be effective must consciously and effectively humanize the nonviolent activists to the oppressing forces in order to introduce contradictions into their justifications and create splits within the ruling classes of the oppressing powers. This is a long term strategy so you have to make sure that whoever you are nonviolent resisting isn’t gonna just kill everyone, which they will try to do, even if it is against their interests to do so.

3. Violence may be immediately necessary to protect human life, in the short term or in the long term. The fact is violent repression creates the conditions for violent resistance escalation of violence sharpens the contradictions already present in the status quo and creates splits among the various classes in an oppressor/oppressed dialectic. In this way violent resistance can galvanize both violent and nonviolent forms of resistance for your side, but it also does so for the other side. Therefore violence should be avoided if possible, but if violence is perceived as defensive or necessary it can have progressive or even revolutionary consequences on consciousness and material conditions.

So the conditions that introduce struggle and violence are social contradictions, not necessarily a conscious choice by individuals intending to do violence, although sometimes it is.

So for my part, as an American with that perspective, I’ve become fond of the concept of “armed nonviolent defense.” An example of this is the Deacons of Defense and Justice that proliferated in the south during desegregation. Groups of black men took up arms to defend their communities from Klan violence, and provided security for MLK, CORE; as well as forcing the Klan underground in the south for a generation or two. So organized citizens defending their communities and working together with political groups and revolutionaries to defend against violent reaction without the progressive political movement taking it upon itself to be a violent one.

This is an immense and complex topic and the rightness or wrongness of it is contingent on the historical conditions that are present. So understanding “correct” usages of violence and non violence doesn’t extend from our moral obligations, but our obligations to the real world, each other and the future of our movements.

Videodrome. Watched it few years ago and started strongly recalling watching certain scenes. 20 minutes in I was like oh wow I’ve seen this before, but by the time James woods was doing bdsm with a debbie harry television, I was like “who let me watch this?”

It explains a lot, honestly

My friend is a medical librarian and stumbled across two full real skeletons being thrown away, she took their skulls. So yeah ethically sourced and she actually had a website where you could order different human bones left over from cadavers. So they’re not that hard to source, a lot of people donate their body to science, which is good.

“Kitsch” is hard to define weird. “Absquatulate” is the weirdest word I use on a semi-regular basis because it just means to leave quickly.

Its been a long time, like I said I read it right when it came out. I’m glad people enjoyed it! It was quite an investment, and I loved most of the books leading up, even the Wizard and the Glass. You all make some good points but it just didn’t hit me that way and I’m not liable to go back. I hardly read any fiction anymore, except the occasional classic, Philip K Dick, or whenever Joe Abercrombie comes out with a new book I’ll usually pick it up.

I hated book 7, ruined the whole series

I hated book 7. Ruined the whole series for me. I read the last 3 books (excluding Wind through the Keyhole, I’m done) when they came out, book 6 was just a setup/tease for book 7 and I was so excited for it. But it was so dumb and disappointing. I’ve talked to people who liked the ending and I just don’t get it. 6 books building up the existential evil that lived at the center of all existence, and when he gets to the tower to face the evil it’s just an old guy on a balcony throwing Harry Potter hand grenades. You have to suspend so much disbelief to get there, trudge through thousands of pages, and it’s just a sad, pathetic, uninspired, lazy ending.

I was singing this the other day to my wife and she was confused. Haven’t listened to Bungle since college, gotta dig Disco Volente out soon

I recommend Clown Core all the time, but yeah it’s not for normies

“I Got a Feeling” by Neva Denova. It’s not a famous band or song, but its so incredibly sad and angry and nihilistic and there’s nothing else that comes close. When I’m feeling really shitty though, it kind of cheers me up. It has this long sing-along outro, “The world’s a shitty place, and I can’t wait to die.” But after repeating this over and over the song ends and someone in the background says affectionately, “I’m just kidding world, you know I love you.” I’ve struggled with intrusive negative thoughts for most of my life, and there is something cathartic about having my internal pain externalized in song-form, and that final line is like a voice I’ve had to develop that fights against all the negativity, to like survive the worst of the blackest depressions. Except instead of taking no small amount of energy to consciously or automatically summon that voice, it comes easy; it’s right on the recording, and it plays every time.

I wouldn’t say I’m embarrassed to tell people about the song, but I do think people would worry about me if they knew I listened to it when at my worst. But it really makes me feel like, “well at least I’m not that depressed and nihilistic,” and it helps.

Noone believes that people have full freedom with no context, no extenuating circumstances. What makes arguments like this seem convincing is how uncommon it is for people to think dialectically.

Here’s a very good essay that steps through all of the different parts of the problem, and looks at different views historically. https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individual.html

To the hard deterministic explanation that “something always came before,” it asks “what is the role of the individual in history?”

This excerpt isn’t a substitute for reading the whole essay but it makes a point pretty concisely:

But let us return to our subject. A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes. Carlyle, in his well-known book on heroes and hero-worship, calls great men beginners. This is a very apt description. A great man is precisely a beginner because he sees further than others, and desires things more strongly than others. He solves the scientific problems brought up by the preceding process of intellectual development of society; he points to the new social needs created by the preceding development of social relationships; he takes the initiative in satisfying these needs. He is a hero. But he is not a hero in the sense that he can stop, or change, the natural course of things, but in the sense that his activities are the conscious and free expression of this inevitable and unconscious course. Herein lies all his significance; herein lies his whole power. But this significance is colossal, and the power is terrible.

Why are we assuming we don’t have free will? We do. Its not total freedom, our freedom is contingent on existing circumstances, but hard determinism is easily disprovable.

The idea that there is no free will is a mind fuck that keeps you from questioning your reality. You might as well ask, “assuming the earth is flat, why does the stick disappear on the horizon?”