Glowingpains

What we cannot perceive, we call mystery. What we cannot understand, we call magic. What we cannot perfect, we call art. What we cannot complete, we call science. What we cannot agree upon, we call religion.

Using religion as a basis of law (over science!), is the dumbest possible timeline.

Is this supposed to be damage control? Do you think we don't understand or fail to grasp your "justifications" for betraying your mandates, your mission, your patient community, your Hippocratic oaths?

You are complicit in the most literal sense. You complied with a crime. Reverse your decision.

(11) But I bet you all the money that has ever existed that it will be a man that makes that decision.

Men are the biggest existential threat to humanity, bar none. Evolutionarily speaking, individually speaking, doesn't matter. Men have got to get a fucking GRIP. Or we all pay for it, even them.

Someone, sooner or later, is going to go "fuck it, launch the nukes" because they are so pissed they can't get their own way, or so despairing at an unwinnable situation, and....that's it. Once that ice is broken, the second nuke will be that much more likely.

(9) if we can't find a way to definitively manage our instincts (in a way that doesn't introduce an even worse dystopia where our instincts are directly pliable and therefore capable of being weaponized for even greater oppression vs today)...if we can't get it right, the rifle is on the mantlepiece

(8) and that's the end of the sentence that evo.psych leaves open. Yes, we have programming but we ALSO have executive oversight, and interventions for those evils. I think we're doing a shit job of that, though. And I think, of we want to survive as a species, we NEED (not optional) to do better.

(7) complicity is complicity, so I'm not exonerating women by sourcing their contributions to the realm of inhumane behaviour back to men. But I think it's important to be aware of the link.

Here's my point though: we don't HAVE to be like this. We can control ourselves. It's hard, but possible.

(6) women have other kinds of programs, other kinds of toxicity. And maybe it's only as a consequence of them being historically subjugated by men, but....absent men's threats, I think women won't typically default to behaviours that end up killing 6 million people in gas chambers

(5) ...it typically results in them taking out their impotence in areas where they have a very basic, British, but *satisfying and soothing* control. And so they abuse people with less people, to cope with how they themselves are being wronged by the basic facts of existence.

(4) These programs are immensely advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint. But they can lead to the very worst behaviours, resulting in the very worst of human experience, such as fascism, etc. when men come up against the limits of their ability to force the world to conform, to make sense...

(3) but we don't experience life from an evolutionary lens. We have many instincts that we recognize are not ideal for the communities and societies we've built, and do our best to suppress them. Men's need to define, constrain, control, possess, these are, to my mind, evolutionary programs.

(2) the main criticism of evo.psych is that it leads to a sense of fatalism, bioessentialism etc. but MY take is that, while our programming leads us towards certain tendencies, those tendencies aren't the ONLY way we can behave/operate. Those programs work in an evolutionary context. (Cont.)

(1) I think a lot about why we do what we do. I personally believe that we are the way we are due to evolutionary programming. Evolutionary psychology is problematic, but I believe it fundamentally describes a lot of our behaviour. It just fails to finish the sentence.

I see no reason why this can't be done; hate speech is not and cannot be considered protected speech. And there is no speech more hateful than that of fascism, of whatever stripe.

I'm talking about you, Christofascists, quit trying to outdo the literal nazis

Ie, I'm speaking to the viewpoint that has a post of mine being declared as violating Community standards when what it actually did was uphold them through the celebration of the death of an existential threat to those standards. How do we get institutions onboard with that level of antifascism?

when I say that there's no ethical way to oppose Nazis through direct action prior to them seizing power, I'm trying to say is that most of society believes what is legal is the same as what is right. I'm trying to find a way to reconcile how to oppose nazis not only meaningfully but also legally.

They view the use of violence to suppress fascism as an over extension, as an illegal response. Those people tend to believe that the law and Justice are the same thing. I don't think there's much chance of being able to convince most people, otherwise. It's too comfy in the middle.

I agree with all of your points. I am trying to navigate the line that exists between disparate elements of society. In my neck of the woods Nazis are punched, pardon the pun, on their face. Prima facie. But other elements of society are not quite so gung-ho on the subject.

(9) I don't see a way to ethically engage in direct action against fascism before it's too late to do so.

So how do we protect ourselves? Are we therefore doomed to endlessly repeat the thing that must #NeverAgain happen?

I don't know. I'm open to suggestions, because I'm 100% stuck on this.

(8) if racists only become Nazis when they have the mechanism of the state behind them, then that poses a conundrum:

If you wait for them to become Nazis by seizing power, it's too late to stop them. But before that time, it's unjustifiable based on the laws of the society at risk of collapse.

(7) where an existential threat to a society exists, lofty ideals, ie, higher order needs & goals of a society, are impossible. The social contract begins to fade as soon as Nazis seize power.

Once they seize power, it's basically too late to act, though it may not be immediately apparent.

(6) a person who carves out space for difference and diversity, who cares about how they use power even when there is no accountability, is by definition not a Nazi...at least not until Nazi governments corrupt and absorb them into their bureaucracy, preventing them from acting in a moral manner.

(5) A Nazi will inevitably begin to target their own in-group when they largely run out of easily targetable victims from any out-group. Ideological purity and loyalty tests, will force any fascist government into cannibalism.

But they do a fuckload of harm to everyone else before that happens.

(4) A Nazi is a) someone who ultimately wants everyone who is different....dead. A Nazi given power and no accountability on how they use that power will move as quickly as possible towards that goal, starting with people who are least like them, and most vulnerable. But they never stop there.

(3) their existence is antithetical, anathematic, and invariably toxic to, any society based on laws and justice.

It's a bit of a cliche that every general ethical, moral, and legislative principle necessary to form a decent society must necessarily exclude Nazis. But what is a Nazi?

(2) I would suggest that, in order to violate community standards, there must first be a shared community. Nazis form no part of any civilized community I can think of.

That's their WHOLE THING. They aren't interested in forming communities: they want everyone who is not them dead.

(1) A recent post I made (since taken down) about the recent event that catapulted TurningPointUSA into the national discourse was flagged for removal for violating community standards, a thread:

Another thought: Nazis instituted draconian punishments for disobedience. Ex-ing a Nazi usually meant everyone around you would be punished (killed) along with you.

Put another way: not even the threat of death for (only) the perpetrator was enough to deter people from ex-ing Nazis.

What converts a standard racist/bigot into ab actual Nazi is not the intensity of their belief but rather the backing of the state. Racists are an inevitable consequence of our worst instincts, but mostly self-regulate by being so awful no one can stand them. Once they somehow get elected though...

Not Fenway posting at least daily until they fucked over trans kids against all medical consensus, and then going radio silent until the storm blows over. Guess what bitches, there's still minimum 3 more years to go.

Can't wait to see what 2026 brings from Fenway health!