?

No

Remember America, this is what you wanted.

No it isn’t. Would be cool if people would stop saying that. Only about 30% of Americans spoke up to say they wanted this

How bout living off of credit cards with no consideration for financial responsibility because money just feels made up at this point?

Month 1-6:

You must be a roundearther. This post is for smart people, so you can just find your way out 😤

Terribly sorry to do this but, you got me thinking about stuff I’d forgotten and… >!^(I lost the game)!<

DUHHHHH

Edit: oh I see, thanks

surprising

As a therapist with ADHD and lots of clients with ADHD, this is not a surprise to me at all, and I can’t imagine it’s a surprise to anyone else in the field (that would be surprising)

for some reason

My concern is power’s tendency to corrupt though

Some people have different priorities.

Participating in the electoral process reinforces existing power structures. To instead challenge them, some advocate for direct action and grassroots organizing as more effective means of enacting social change. Some would rather build alternative systems and communities outside traditional political frameworks, because liberation comes from collective action rather than reliance on electoral representatives.

While I don’t like legitimizing electoralism, and I would rather the billions spent on it go towards real tangible needs, I don’t abstain, I do vote. So I can’t fully defend this position.

Plenty of people who didn’t vote probably honestly don’t care, but that doesn’t mean they actively want Trump. That’s just silly to suggest

Some people are just apathetic about it, and a lot of those people likely feel that way because there’s no mainstream candidate that actually seems to care about their needs.

That’s fair, I used that term loosely. I guess I meant ‘becoming a new oppressive force, simply replacing the previous one (the state)’

I think it’s similar to the relationship between deontological vs consequentialist ethics.

It’s like I view the political/organizational aspects as a ‘necessary evil’ of sorts- something I refuse to participate in on principle, but want to be okay with happening around me.

Like how MLK was able to be the pacifist front of the civil rights movement while the black panthers filled the necessary militant role. (Huge simplification, I know, but still. Also backwards kind of in this scenario- I’d be working with the BPP).

I want the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people, but I don’t want to feel like I’m sacrificing my values to get there.

So if the language around it is adjusted, I can get on board with filling my role. But the moment I feel like I have a superior- I’m out.

Edit: also, the thing I said here

That’s helpful, thanks!

I see! Great explanation, thanks

Idk I feel kinda uncomfy about having bastardized such a heartfelt work of art- something the artist very likely may have cried while creating. It exists now though, so you’re welcome to share it if you want!

That’s fair. Though “more concentration of power <-> less concentration of power” seems like an appropriate continuum to me when discussing theory, which is how I interpret that axis. Am I wrong on that?

Thanks for sharing! It’s an interesting and relevant thought.

I would argue that changing the language though does, in a way, change the thing itself. By adjusting our language, it shifts our perspective, which affects our thoughts and behaviors. Like replacing “mankind” with “humankind” etc.

If we want to ensure the vanguard don’t end up replacing the state, it seems like we ought not place them on a pedestal with our language