Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Dec-2024 23:34:52 JST djsumdog
   Kicking the hornets nest: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/on-the-shooting-of-ceos-and-psychological-operations/
   • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 00:20:46 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to
     @djsumdog
     Interesting read.
     I don't have much to add to it aside on this
     >You can’t shoot people you disagree with, and you can’t shoot people to solve your disputes. That is not the society that I want to live in. I hope the person who did it is found. I hope they are put in prison, and I hope they enjoy spending their life there because that’s the world that we should live in. We don’t. We don’t want to open that box that is a bad box to open
     
     As morally valid it is you can also spin it like this:
     "You can’t deny medical refund to people you disagree with, and you can’t ignore their demands to solve/augment your return on investment for shareholders. That is not the society that I want to live in. I hope the person who do it is found. I hope they are put in prison, and I hope they enjoy spending their life there because that’s the world that we should live in. We don’t. We don’t want to open that box that is a bad box to open "
     
     It's as morally wrong to deny medication to people who are asking/paying for it, it's a form passive violence, as much as it is morally wrong to remove the issue that blocks that with physical violence.
     Because in either case it ends up with more passive and physical violence.
     
     But you also have to acknowledge that in some cases, where all reason, all possible dialog where people refuse to listen and be reasonable to pleas then it is also normal to be able to defend yourself, first legally, and if that fails then sadly only a physical intervention is possible.
     But like stated in the blog post it's quite suspicious that this man was currently under several investigations and that the "murderer" was found so quickly and with massive evidence.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 00:37:11 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     It's as morally wrong to deny medication to people who are asking/paying for it, it's a form passive violence, as much as it is morally wrong to remove the issue that blocks that with physical violence.

     Yea, sorry dude, this doesn't make logical sense. The insurance company denies payment, but does that mean you are denied care? Of course not. It means you have to pay it out of pocket.

     You might not be able to afford it. Then you die of cancer.

     Let's take a step back to 1924. There's no kemo. There's no cancer treatment. Medicine is more affordable, but it's literally way less advanced and less effective.

     it's a form passive violence

     STOP MAKING UP WORDS! Passive violence? I'm sorry, actual violence is violence. Hitting people and shooting them and throwing shit at them is violent. Withholding water from a person dying of thirst IS SHITTY but it's NOT VIOLENCE. Stop trying to diminish or redefine what violence actually is.

     --

     People are not entitled to care. You have no right to housing. You have no right to clean water or food. A good society has these things at reasonable prices everyone can exchange a reasonable amount of labor for. But the product of someone else's labor can never be a right. It takes millions of dollars and hundreds of workers to build and maintain a water treatment system.

     The issues with health are complex. There is a priest class of doctors who care a lot about money. There is this scam called insurance, and paying into it creates perverse incentives, decreases competition and raises costs. The evil people in this chain include the insurance companies AND the doctors AND the universities AND the board certification system. There is more than plenty of blame to go around.

     But shooting one guy (who might be a piece of shit; I don't know) is a really lame piece of cathartic bullshit that literally solves nothing and really only makes things much worse.

   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 00:43:46 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Jerome
     If the government doesn't have a monopoly on violence, then you don't have a government. If everyone carries out their own justice, you have the gangs of Chicago, the cartels of Central America, and the warlords of Somalia.
     
     With government monopoly on violence, you get corrupt prosecutors like the one in NYC who tried to put away Daniel Kenny .. or Kyle Rittenhouse .. and they failed, but there are others who succeeded of putting innocent men away (Derek Chauvin, and the four put away in the Ahmaud Arbery case). You also have corruption in the government which allows the likes of Epstine and PDiddy.
     
     Is mob justice the type of justice you want? Even if the system is rotten in some ways, the ideas behind juries and adversarial trials is arguably better than trial by combat or Soviet show trials or Star Chambers.
     
     Some innocent people will always die in witch trials or CIA psyops.
     
     There are trade-offs at every step of the way.
   • Embed this notice
     Jerome (j@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 00:43:47 JST Jerome

     in reply to
     @djsumdog
     >Murder is not Justice
     
     "It's only justice when the government does it"
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 01:29:28 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Jerome
     Do you think it's the individual's responsibility to commit violence? to commit justice?
     
     I don't think justice works at the individual level. It doesn't work much better at the mob level either. Having a system (even if it's a shitty system, like a priest or a king or trial by combat) at least sets some rules. Over time, those rules can get better or worse.
     
     That system might be a tribe leader or a king or a war lords or a council of war lords or a group of elected people. But even with the gang leader ... you get a de-factor government of some kind. You might not think of it as such, but it is.
     
     I think justice only works at the group behavior level. You need a social group to have that concept. I am for smaller systems, smaller states, smaller countries .. and I think we'd be much better off globally if the US had been allowed to split into two different self government entities back when it wanted a divorce.
     
     But I don't think you escape the government. Those who do just end up forming another government.
   • Embed this notice
     Jerome (j@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 01:29:29 JST Jerome

     in reply to
     @djsumdog my argument is it's not the government's job to commit violence
   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 01:36:50 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to
     @djsumdog
     >but does that mean you are denied care?
     It can be.
     For example in my case, I couldn't afford a housing or social housing because of my father declaration on my behalf and I had high probabilities of having to live in a tent, I did everything I could to find a legal way out of this but even renting land people denied me this option out of fear, even people I knew and have serviced.
     In the end I had a struck of luck from someone who is letting me in his house, even tho abandoned and in need of repair, it's still better than being in a tent.
     I would have probably died tbh.
     
     >It means you have to pay it out of pocket.
     That doesn't mean you can.
     
     >There's no cancer treatment. Medicine is more affordable, but it's literally way less advanced and less effective.
     > it's a form passive violence
     You seem under the impression that passive violence source itself from the...void ?
     Of course it doesn't.
     There's only passive violence when people are doing so.
     As said previously my case, passive violence emerged first from my father, then the people being overly paranoid, and it ended with someone who was willing to enable life.
     
     >STOP MAKING UP WORDS
     >Stop trying to diminish or redefine what violence actually is.
     Now that's a good example of passive violence.
     You spoke of emotional manipulation in your blob, that's what is passive violence, but it's not always emotional manipulation from external source, it can also be emotional manipulation from oneself.
     To cite NVC:
     --Life-alienating communication both stems from and support hierarchical or domination society, where large populations are controlled by a small number of individuals to those individuals own benefit. It would be in the interest of kings, czars, nobles and so forth that the masses be educated in a way that renders them slavelike in mentality. The language on wrongness, should, and have to is perfectly suited for this purpose: the more people are trained to think in terms of moralistic judgement that imply wrongness and badness, the more they are being trained to look outside of themselves - to look outside authorities-for the definition of what constitutes right, wrong, good, and bad. When we are in contact with our feelings and needs, we humans no longer make good slaves and underlings. --
     -- https://www.cnvc.org/store/nonviolent-communication-a-language-of-life
     
     >People are not entitled to care. You have no right to housing. You have no right to clean water or food.
     True and I never said otherwise. But you can't deny that not being able to get any of this reasonably or after participating in society for so long is not alienating.
     
     >is a really lame piece of cathartic bullshit that literally solves nothing and really only
     I agree. My point isn't that it's good, I'm just saying that it is a consequence of someone alienated to that point and that person though of nothing else to either solve for themselves or that they though that it might avoid other people to suffer as their did.
     
     >There is this scam called insurance, and paying into it creates perverse incentives, decreases competition and raises costs
     I wouldn't call it a scam, it depends on why it it was made and what are the goals. Of course if you create such entity with the goal not creating value or the sake of value and not for the sake of mitigating people's suffering then it results in the current scheme.
     
     >makes things much worse.
     I agree that it's unfortunate that this stops or damages the various ongoing investigations.
     I'm curious tho on the short time effects that is currently ongoing with people having for the first time in many year having their prescription paid for. is it only temporary ? Most likely. If it is only temporary just to calm down people then it will happen again at some point.
     Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 02:30:52 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     I would have probably died tbh. That doesn't mean you can.

     I don't think you got my meaning from this. It wasn't meant to be sarcastic but it was meant to reflect terrible realities. Yes it does suck if you can't afford housing or treatment. It's a harsh reality and society should do better, but at the same time, the ether of society can't help everyone. It's the ideal (hence the story of Jesus helping everyone; the perfection no human can be), but not the reality. You can only control yourself, not others.

     Now that's a good example of passive violence.

     Words are not violence. Speech is not violence. I'm not budging here. You posted a link, but all that shows is how the definition is changing in ways it shouldn't. There are already words for what you describe: neglect.

     Neglect isn't violence. It can still be bad. There is "criminal negligence," but that's different from "assault."

     TruthStream Media do a lot of videos where they look up words in old dictionaries. They have one from every decade. It's so interesting to see how words change (the term "mainstream" didn't exist at the turn of the century It's less than 100 years old). I would hypothesizes dictionaries from the 30s would characterize violence as I have, while more recent dictionaries have started to change it to the definition you stated.

     Calling speech violence or creating a new definition of "passive violence," is how you erode the freedom to speak and the freedom to think. Negligence is not violence. I did NOT commit a violence on you. That redefinition of the term is not a direction I think humanity should go down.

     True and I never said otherwise. But you can't deny that not being able to get any of this reasonably or after participating in society for so long is not alienating.

     It's bad, sure. It's alienating. But if you're not entitled to it, then what are we talking about? Some people exchange enough value to get money or positions to allow medical care. Some have family who can help. Others have to forgo dignity and beg on that American crowd funding healthcare site: GoFund Me 😅

     It's bad, but in 1924, would you be better or worse? How about 1954? How much of it is really about health care versus not having terrible food supplies that are killing us? I don't know what the solution is, but I tend to side towards personal responsibility (or family/tribe responsibility) over expecting a greater society of government to care about the masses.

     I dunno. A lot to think about for sure :blobcatshrug:

   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 03:55:36 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to
     @djsumdog
     >It wasn't meant to be sarcastic
     I did not interpret it as such.
     
     >but it was meant to reflect terrible realities.
     So did I.
     
     >and society should do better,
     Society can't do better as long as individuals are mental slaves to their own logical fallacies.
     
     >society can't help everyone
     In terms of resource I disagree.
     In terms of psychology I agree. Some people don't want to be helped, some people can't be helped and some people will be or not be helped by mistake/human error.
     
     >You can only control yourself, not others.
     That's one of the point of NVC.
     
     >Words are not violence
     Words can be. And more importantly the conscious and unconscious choice of doing so is also as such.
     
     >I'm not budging here
     I'm not asking you too. At worst we'll agree to disagree which seems so far to be heading in that direction.
     
     >how the definition is changing in ways it shouldn't.
     NVC isn't blaming you for the way you speak, nor is blaming the one who reacts, it's only pointing out that no matter who is doing what it's both parties to choose on what they decide to do.
     Turns out we have higher chances of having people expressing their needs and feelings when you don't insult them/use passive violence.
     And it also turns out that we have higher chances of having people expressing their needs and feelings when you observe them instead of evaluating them.
     It's both parties who is responsible for what they want from each other.
     
     >Neglect isn't violence. It can still be bad.
     Neglect can be a form of passive violence.
     
     >Calling speech violence or creating a new definition of "passive violence,"
     The concept is as old as Ghandy .
     People with ill intentions will always used passive violence to evaluate reality to stir it to their own benefit while neglecting people, thus leading to alienation.
     
     >s how you erode the freedom to speak and the freedom to think
     That's only when the goal is to subvert, and not to build bridges of communications.
     
     >I did NOT commit a violence on you.
     I did not say that. And I didn't interpret it as such. That's the difference between evaluation and observation.
     Evaluation is mixing feeling and needs, observation you will differentiate between the two.
     
     >ut if you're not entitled to it, then what are we talking about?
     I think the initial subject was about people paying insurances and that the said paid for insurances denied access to what contracts should have provided customers, since they participated in the financial pool.
     
     >It's bad, but in 1924, would you be better or worse?
     >How about 1954?
     We currently live in the most alienating timeline of humanity. Most of the populations in developed countries are still propagating passive violence not only from generational/genetic lineage but also the methodologies of subversion that the cold war brought which multiplied greatly the types of passive violence.
     
     >How much of it is really about health care versus not having terrible food supplies that are killing us?
     I think both are true. The finance of healthcare should not be for profit, but the people working in it should be able to live decently like anyone.
     As for food, I won't cite the industrial revolution and it's consequences as the change of the abnormal human diet started when agriculture started to privilege growing and eating crops instead of raising cattle several thousands of years ago.
     
     > I don't know what the solution is
     I there's not definitive solution, but I believe that NVC is best candidate to mitigate the social discord.
     
     >but I tend to side towards personal responsibility (or family/tribe responsibility)
     We both agree then.
     
     >over expecting a greater society of government to care about the masses.
     I think both is needed to be done.
     
     >A lot to think about for sure
     My point of view on almost all of the societal issues is that it's a domino effect caused mainly by passive violence. It's mostly involuntary for people to make things worse as the core of human beings for survival/adaptation is to be good neighbors to each other.
     Of course there are sadly exceptions with people born with genetic deceases that goes against what natural selection provided us with and such people can't be helped.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 04:28:56 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • CapitalB
     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     You are not "entitled" to care .. you live in a state where a set of rules and systems arose to give people that care.
     
     ... honestly no one is really entitled to anything outside of a system of control. Now that I think about it ... entitlement only comes from submission. It might be to a republic instead of a king, but you still have to bend the knee. :gummythink:
   • Embed this notice
     CapitalB (capitalb@noauthority.social)'s status on Wednesday, 11-Dec-2024 04:28:57 JST CapitalB

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     @djsumdog @mangeurdenuage

     >People are not entitled to care.

     Yes they are at some places. If they are so disorganized thst they are not covered, then the city pays summarily - and OH WONDER, THAT price is much, much lower.
     The problems are everywhere the same. If there is an opaque interface, responsability will end in expensive grifts.

     Interested thread reader from Switzerland.