6 ms·

>> It’s easy when politics doesn’t actually impact you. If you had relatives being deported or being shot by the police, it’s likely that you wouldn’t just tell

>> It’s easy when politics doesn’t actually impact you. If you had relatives being deported or being shot by the police, it’s likely that you wouldn’t just tell your friends/family « sorry, i have no control over this » My grandparents paid attention to politics, as did many in the United States at the time. TV news was watched, no Internet, lot of newspaper reading. They were sent to Tule Lake and interned for being Japanese-American all the same; their possessions stolen by a government who doesn't care if its citizens "care" about politics. The average person has no control over "politics." Caring about it didn't save my grandparents, nor the protests of all of their friends. No one took care of that dirty work. That's the great delusion.

WaitWaitWha 6y ago
Yep. All the talk and writing mean nothing when push comes to shove. Are you willing to die for what you believe in? And, before one answers this hastily, think about it. I have come to realize most are quite selfish in various way, myself included.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Are you willing to die for what you believe in? And, before one answers this hastily, think about it. Your point is well taken. Certainly there are issues and problems that gravely trouble people of integrity and good conscience. However, while sometimes there are things we can do within our own lives to address those issues and problems, often there isn't any way to have a measurable impact. That's not to say we should just give up. On the contrary, I think it's important to try to improve the lives of those around us within the scope of our focus, abilities and resources. When I was a young man (in my twenties), I would often wonder if the work I was doing (tech) was really making the world a better place in a serious way. That really bothered me for a while. But I came to realize that while we can't all have a measurable, global positive impact on the world, we most certainly can have a local positive impact on the people and world around us. Do I create better working conditions for people in Bangladesh? No. Can I genetically engineer a more effective SARS-CoV2 vaccine? No. But I can treat those around me with respect, act with integrity and support my community. I can do constructive work within my chosen profession. And I can speak out when I see injustice, intolerance and hate. Will that end the pandemic or halt the war in Syria or end world hunger and poverty? No. But if I can do my part to lift up those near me, act with honesty and integrity and create constructive solutions for the projects I contribute to, I can be satisfied that I'm having a positive impact on the world around me. None of that requires that I be willing to die for that, but that doesn't mean I'm not having a measurable, positive impact on the world.
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  Your question is begged. People are not actually killed for their beliefs. Rather, people are killed for their actions. Nobody can be killed simply for holding a belief, because it's not possible for the killers to tell who does and does not hold the belief. So, really, what you're asking is whether people are willing to, once they start acting in a way which risks their life, continue acting in that same way. And it turns out that the vast majority of people killed by this reasoning are killed by genocide or as collateral damage of war; they're swept away by hate and violence which they did not invite. The question really should be, then, rather one is willing to risk their life for the specific action of interrupting those who are trying to kill others in this way. And such interruptions often turn out to not be very risky, unless the interruption is happening very late in the process, at the moment of violence. It was not risky to yell at street fascists in 2017, before they were creating so many street fights, because they were not yet strong enough to simply fight, but instead had to justify their hate before a largely non-violent crowd. Now in 2021, though, yelling at street fascists is dangerous, but referring them to the FBI is relatively safe. What was acceptable praxis has changed. From this POV, we must recontextualize your original message. Who is pushing and shoving? Fascists. Who are they pushing and shoving? Undesired minorities. By what means are you allowed to be selfish? Well, you might not be in an affected class! This is a failure of solidarity. You must be willing to defend the rights of others, if you expect them to defend your rights as well.
  - WaitWaitWha 6y ago
    Dear @myWindoon, we can play the pedantic game, and set the cause on those who are killed for their "actions" simply by saying or being something that got them killed. Allow me to introduce a few samples who disagree with your nuanced analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_tol...
    - myWindoonn 6y ago
      You didn't read my comment. I said that most people who are killed for their actions are indeed killed in genocide or war. I know that you want to have an attitude where you are indignant that I am minimizing genocide and war, but no, I agree with you that it has been the main killer of people. Pragmatism cannot be escaped simply by complaining that I am pedantic. Saying something is an action. Practicing a ritual is an action. Dressing a certain way is an action. Eating certain foods is an action. Recall that your original post insinuated that most people are too selfish to choose to die for their beliefs. I am trying to explain to you that people do not choose to die for their beliefs; rather, they choose to take certain actions, and then their killers choose to kill them because of those actions. It is the selfishness of those personal actions which we are considering. And, once we have achieved this scale, we can clearly see that killing itself is an action. It is simply another tool for achieving our selfish ends. A person can choose to selfishly kill as many people as they can reach. This suggests that our morality needs to not just account for making the choice to "die for what you believe in", but also the choice to kill for what you believe in. Finally, let us consider the context of your original comment. The comment recounted a tale of folks who were sent to concentration camps in the USA during WW2. They claimed that the average person has no control over federal politics; you agreed and asked people to consider how they would prefer selfishly to not stick their necks out for the sake of ending the concentration camps. However, there are two grand ironies there: first, that we today claim to have entered WW2 in order to destroy concentration camps; and second, that we today have concentration camps on our southern border. I don't know exactly what your point is, since you're not using your words well, but I think that you should take a step back and try to figure out where you're headed. I have the luxury of an elected representative who already is trying to close down the concentration camps, so I know which side I'm on.
- onecommentman 6y ago
  If your beliefs are telling you to kill people, including yourself, take a step back. Maybe two. In fact, run as far and fast as you can, until you can cover your beliefs with your thumb. Find a room and sit down for a long while. Longer than you think you need to...however long you ponder, it’s shorter than death. Ask yourself whether your beliefs are making you more kind and loving to everyone you meet, including yourself. There is no reason why they can’t. If they are aren’t, well, I think you should tell your beliefs your soul and spirit need more space and you want to start seeing other beliefs. It’s not them, the beliefs, it’s you. Whatever makes it easy on them. But try not to die. At the end of the day, beliefs are just a few neurons with an overinflated sense of their own importance. Causes can be noble, or they can just be some personal egos scribbled on a poster. You are more than your brain and those scribbles, and the rest gets a vote too. This assumes, of course, meaningful freedom to choose.
  - WaitWaitWha 6y ago
    No disagreement, but not sure the link, since willing to die =/= willing to kill

WaitWaitWha 6y ago

Yep. All the talk and writing mean nothing when push comes to shove. Are you willing to die for what you believe in? And, before one answers this hastily, think about it. I have come to realize most are quite selfish in various way, myself included.

nobody9999 6y ago
>Are you willing to die for what you believe in? And, before one answers this hastily, think about it. Your point is well taken. Certainly there are issues and problems that gravely trouble people of integrity and good conscience. However, while sometimes there are things we can do within our own lives to address those issues and problems, often there isn't any way to have a measurable impact. That's not to say we should just give up. On the contrary, I think it's important to try to improve the lives of those around us within the scope of our focus, abilities and resources. When I was a young man (in my twenties), I would often wonder if the work I was doing (tech) was really making the world a better place in a serious way. That really bothered me for a while. But I came to realize that while we can't all have a measurable, global positive impact on the world, we most certainly can have a local positive impact on the people and world around us. Do I create better working conditions for people in Bangladesh? No. Can I genetically engineer a more effective SARS-CoV2 vaccine? No. But I can treat those around me with respect, act with integrity and support my community. I can do constructive work within my chosen profession. And I can speak out when I see injustice, intolerance and hate. Will that end the pandemic or halt the war in Syria or end world hunger and poverty? No. But if I can do my part to lift up those near me, act with honesty and integrity and create constructive solutions for the projects I contribute to, I can be satisfied that I'm having a positive impact on the world around me. None of that requires that I be willing to die for that, but that doesn't mean I'm not having a measurable, positive impact on the world.
myWindoonn 6y ago
Your question is begged. People are not actually killed for their beliefs. Rather, people are killed for their actions. Nobody can be killed simply for holding a belief, because it's not possible for the killers to tell who does and does not hold the belief. So, really, what you're asking is whether people are willing to, once they start acting in a way which risks their life, continue acting in that same way. And it turns out that the vast majority of people killed by this reasoning are killed by genocide or as collateral damage of war; they're swept away by hate and violence which they did not invite. The question really should be, then, rather one is willing to risk their life for the specific action of interrupting those who are trying to kill others in this way. And such interruptions often turn out to not be very risky, unless the interruption is happening very late in the process, at the moment of violence. It was not risky to yell at street fascists in 2017, before they were creating so many street fights, because they were not yet strong enough to simply fight, but instead had to justify their hate before a largely non-violent crowd. Now in 2021, though, yelling at street fascists is dangerous, but referring them to the FBI is relatively safe. What was acceptable praxis has changed. From this POV, we must recontextualize your original message. Who is pushing and shoving? Fascists. Who are they pushing and shoving? Undesired minorities. By what means are you allowed to be selfish? Well, you might not be in an affected class! This is a failure of solidarity. You must be willing to defend the rights of others, if you expect them to defend your rights as well.
- WaitWaitWha 6y ago
  Dear @myWindoon, we can play the pedantic game, and set the cause on those who are killed for their "actions" simply by saying or being something that got them killed. Allow me to introduce a few samples who disagree with your nuanced analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_tol...
  - myWindoonn 6y ago
    You didn't read my comment. I said that most people who are killed for their actions are indeed killed in genocide or war. I know that you want to have an attitude where you are indignant that I am minimizing genocide and war, but no, I agree with you that it has been the main killer of people. Pragmatism cannot be escaped simply by complaining that I am pedantic. Saying something is an action. Practicing a ritual is an action. Dressing a certain way is an action. Eating certain foods is an action. Recall that your original post insinuated that most people are too selfish to choose to die for their beliefs. I am trying to explain to you that people do not choose to die for their beliefs; rather, they choose to take certain actions, and then their killers choose to kill them because of those actions. It is the selfishness of those personal actions which we are considering. And, once we have achieved this scale, we can clearly see that killing itself is an action. It is simply another tool for achieving our selfish ends. A person can choose to selfishly kill as many people as they can reach. This suggests that our morality needs to not just account for making the choice to "die for what you believe in", but also the choice to kill for what you believe in. Finally, let us consider the context of your original comment. The comment recounted a tale of folks who were sent to concentration camps in the USA during WW2. They claimed that the average person has no control over federal politics; you agreed and asked people to consider how they would prefer selfishly to not stick their necks out for the sake of ending the concentration camps. However, there are two grand ironies there: first, that we today claim to have entered WW2 in order to destroy concentration camps; and second, that we today have concentration camps on our southern border. I don't know exactly what your point is, since you're not using your words well, but I think that you should take a step back and try to figure out where you're headed. I have the luxury of an elected representative who already is trying to close down the concentration camps, so I know which side I'm on.
onecommentman 6y ago
If your beliefs are telling you to kill people, including yourself, take a step back. Maybe two. In fact, run as far and fast as you can, until you can cover your beliefs with your thumb. Find a room and sit down for a long while. Longer than you think you need to...however long you ponder, it’s shorter than death. Ask yourself whether your beliefs are making you more kind and loving to everyone you meet, including yourself. There is no reason why they can’t. If they are aren’t, well, I think you should tell your beliefs your soul and spirit need more space and you want to start seeing other beliefs. It’s not them, the beliefs, it’s you. Whatever makes it easy on them. But try not to die. At the end of the day, beliefs are just a few neurons with an overinflated sense of their own importance. Causes can be noble, or they can just be some personal egos scribbled on a poster. You are more than your brain and those scribbles, and the rest gets a vote too. This assumes, of course, meaningful freedom to choose.
- WaitWaitWha 6y ago
  No disagreement, but not sure the link, since willing to die =/= willing to kill