Excrubulent

I'm far less concerned about emboldened supporters than I am about the likely backlash by the state. Events like this are always taken as justification for more harsh oppression of the people. Also, Biden now has to make statements sympathetic to Trump. This couldn't have gone worse - we get the blowback from an attempt, and he's able to ride this to more popularity.

Assassination isn't the way, folks. I know you're hurting, I know you're disempowered by the electoral system, but Trump and Biden aren't the core of the problem. You can't cut the head off because it's not a snake, it's a hydra. The way to beat this system is to build alternatives and wean people off of their dependence on it, and deprive it of victims. You have to starve the beast.

I very much didn't lay out my motivations, I think you may have me confused for someone else.

But again, you're not curious to understand because you think you already know everything you need to know about me.

For what it's worth, I am actually curious to understand what you mean, but I'm struggling to for reasons I've laid out. Your reasoning is very circular and self-contradictory and also a lot of the sentences are very hard to parse out.

I am asking about whether you are curious to understand because I would like to have a real discussion, and I want to know if you are willing to also have one. So far you seem so convinced I would never actually listen to you that you therefore won't listen to me. Unless and until that changes I don't see this particular conversation achieving much.

So to be clear, you're not curious to understand because you believe you can read my mind and understand the secret motivations behind my words that renders them invalid?

This is unbelievably convoluted. You've talked yourself in knots but also somehow believe that your argument is so airtight that any attempt to refute it only invalidates my beliefs.

Your argument is circular, self-defeating and also missing some really obvious things, one of which I already pointed out.

The only thing left to do is to ask if you're actually curious to understand what I mean.

Posting "posting isn't praxis" isn't praxis either. But like, there is value in theory, and you must believe that or else you would've believed it was pointless to post "posting isn't praxis".

Edit: wow, they deleted the entire chain. I've still got it in my inbox, but honestly it's probably for the best that it's gone. That was incredibly unhinged behaviour. Whilst I would normally not take a deletion as an admission of being wrong, one of the things that I said, multiple times, was that their arguments were circular, self-defeating and had no point. Deleting them would seem to be a strong agreement that they were indeed pointless. Since their main position was that nobody can be convinced by online posting, it seems like them changing their mind about posting implies that something in our exchange convinced them they were wrong and that makes that position wrong as well. Do they agree? Who knows, they deleted it all. Their opinion is now missing. If they don't like that well... I guess they could post about it.

I'm not reading that.

Since we're fantasising about an ideal society I'd get rid of wage slavery entirely.

I agree the best jobs are the worst paid, but I think the absolute most important are jobs like child-rearing, and they're usually completely unpaid. It's basically a complete inversion between pay grade and importance.

Like with the Witness K/Collaery cases where some of the trials happened in secret, and the appeals court found that the national security concern was basically bullshit, at least in Collaery's case:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/06/witness-ks-lawyer-wins-transparency-ruling-as-court-cites-need-to-deter-political-prosecutions

I'm glad something good came of that but it shows how easily the national security angle can be abused. We just started normalising government secrecy after WWII and it's only gotten worse since. Nobody would've accepted "national security" as an excuse for this sort of flagrant abuse prior to that.

Born to fart.

Forced to shart.

For some people maybe, but this is meant to address the idea that if we didn't force people into "shitty" jobs through capitalist wage slavery, they wouldn't get done. It's extremely common to hear that retort whenever anyone suggests that our economic system that impoverishes the vast majority of the human race might be bad actually.

I'd love a society where people have to work less for a start, but also where the blue collar jobs are distributed so that information workers had some physical job to do as well. That way they get to work their minds and their bodies, don't wear out either one, and the diversity of experience allows ideas to cross pollinate.

If an engineer worked in garbage disposal they'd be able to engineer out some pain points of the job. A doctor, physiotherapist, administrator, researcher, lawyer, all could learn and help a lot if they saw how the other side lives. People doing blue collar jobs wouldn't be stuck, continuing education would be normalised, the "prestige" aspect of different jobs would be lessened, service and menial workers would be less neglected, and the "ivory tower" of white collar and academic work would come down.

Also the witch hunts were part of the violent transition from feudalism to capitalism. It was about limiting women's access to birth control and growing the workforce. "Witches" were usually the midwives of their villages. Women had to be alienated from control over their own bodies before they could be forced into subservient roles as housewives and baby making machines.

Disenfranchising minorities, and especially women, has always been part of the capitalist playbook to keep us oppressed and attacking one another rather than uniting against them.