A fundamental aspect of our humanity: the urge to destroy that from which you feel excluded.
This urge is crucial to understanding politics. Yet hardly anyone seems to recognise it. Hardly anyone, that is, except the far right, who see it all too well.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/13/trump-populists-human-nature-economic-growth
This is especially true with digital media, which can be copied, effectively, instantly and infinitely at virtually no cost.
Once youโve shared an idea with someone, it no longer exclusively belongs to youโit belongs to anyone youโve shared it with, and anyone they might share it with, and so on, forever. It does no harm to you to have your ideas shared, any more than it does harm to me for you to read these words right now.
There are continued calls to legislate the BC dock workers back to work. And of course employers don't need to negotiate; they just need to wait for the federal government to make the move.
But why do we always opt for 'legislate them back to work'? Why is it never 'legislate the companies to pay them what they are asking for'? That would also resolve the strike.
Government intervention isn't necessarily bad. It's the one-sided nature of government intervention that is.
@georgetakei THIS!! So much THIS!!
Why is this so hard for some people?
It's not hard for them to understand, they understand it perfectly fine. Problem is, these are evil, hateful people. If Religion didn't exist, they'd find something else to justify their hate.
It's our duty to keep this hateful minority out of power, and keep them from influencing policy.
@georgetakei
Evangelicals are becoming the American Taliban.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." โ Mahatma Gandhi
"But then you are all out there having fun while I am not!"
In practice, it does exactly the opposite.
ASH! The words I have always needed.
Although I have been told my address is on a "do not go" list.
Perhaps those young men had too many pointed questions for their elders after their last visit to my door?
โAnybody who wants religion is welcome to it, as far as I'm concerned โ I support your right to enjoy it. However, I would appreciate it if you exhibited more respect for the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture or necrodestination.โ
โ Frank Zappa
@georgetakei This is similar to the 'confusion' folks have distinguishing between boundaries and rules (of control).
Boundaries govern the Self.
Rules control Others.
Heh. I had a former friend (the reason he's no longer a friend will become obvious) tell me once that "You are not allowed to talk about XYZ on your blog or with me. That's a boundary."
I said "No, that's a diktat. You don't get to establish boundaries for anyone but yourself."
@sharonecathcart
Precisely.
There have been convos lately about this distinction re: relationships (Jonah Hill), religion (Christo-Fascists).
This country is steeped in a cultural fantasy about control and anti-liberation - it's why our religious discourse is the way it is.
Folks start with wanting to control others and it's just bizarre.
(Also, I've had a few male friends of mine in the past try and tell me what I can/cannot write about - usually stuff that makes them very uncomfortable about intimacy and sex. I eventually had to tell them "Then don't read my blog.")
@DeliaChristina Yep. In this specific case, the fellow is a hard-core Libertarian who believes no one is entitled to things like health care unless they earn/deserve it. I had written about my belief in the importance of single-payer/universal healthcare ... and he decided it would be a good idea to take me to task for it.
Not so much.
@georgetakei They argue that vigorous proselytizing is part of their religion, and thus preventing them from using coercion (including the power of government) as a tool for this is a violation of their religious rights.
The scary part is that our current SCOTUS is buying that argument.