5 ms·

> It really is amazing, that's why we really need to appreciate and protect what we have. The incredible abundance we currently have is not the norm. It was not

> It really is amazing, that's why we really need to appreciate and protect what we have. The incredible abundance we currently have is not the norm. It was not even 100 years ago that people were starving in the US during the great depression. This is fine and a good exercise (like a gratitude journal). The problem is that this is often used to tell people indirectly that they should stop with their political complaints, which may be well-founded. Like... > Think about this every time someone promotes extremist violent rhetoric. Like this?[1] I don’t know what extremist means here but there are real political problems out there, and some of the solutions are “extremist” (like e.g. some of the solutions to climate change). Violence is less debatable and should be reserved for when it it truly necessary. [1] If you make vague gestures I in turn have to guess.

brigadier132 2y ago
> The problem is that this is often used to tell people indirectly that they should stop with their political complaints It's a tell that you conflate political complaints with extremist violent rhetoric.
- Folcon 2y ago
  I would say that in this forum we try to be charitable to each other and it's certainly the way I like to conduct myself. The poster you're replying to has so far merely provided you with an opportunity to clarify or expand on what you would consider "extremist violent rhetoric". We're all pretty curious people here, and I would say reasonably opinionated, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to ask you to clarify your position. We're not going to get to the high level of discourse we like and expect in this space without a bit of curiosity and generous assumptions to our fellow posters =)...
- keybored 2y ago
  Like I said, when you vaguely point to something in the Zeitgeist I have to guess. I made my assumption clear so don’t try to make this into a gotcha. Specifically extremist, violent, political[1] rhetoric is subsumed by political complaints in general. So if you mean conflate as in draw an equivalence then that is clearly a wrong inference on your part. [1] This adjective wasn’t in your original comment hence my guess.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    You don't seem to be following the site rule of "charitable interpretation" here. This reads more like "legalistic nitpicky interpretation" - that is, like bad faith. (Yes, good faith/charitable interpretation can lead to misunderstandings when some things are left unsaid. No, I don't think maximum nitpickiness is the answer to that.)
    - keybored 2y ago
      I have no idea what you’re talking about.
afthonos 2y ago
As far as I use the term, extremists are people who advocate for tearing the system down via revolution and rebuilding from scratch. They have no idea what it takes to build this modern world, but they love the idea of guillotines.
- keybored 2y ago
  Some people complain about taxation on tea or the lack thereof instead of appreciating how privileged they are to have access to Oriental tea.
  - vsnf 2y ago
    Not having a representative vote in parliament was kind of annoying, but what do I know
    - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
      Nitpick & a tangent, but: Being properly represented in a democratic system is not the same as being able to vote for someone.
      - vsnf 2y ago
        Fair enough, the chant as we learned it was “no taxation without representation”, so you win this one. But my point was that it wasn’t just childish tantrums about taxes, it was also about being forced to buy into a monopoly, not getting any say in the matter, having local business blockaded, etc.
        rrr_oh_man 2y ago
        For what it’s worth: I wasn’t at all disputing your general argument, just wanted to elaborate on a pet peeve of mine. Cheers!
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Those people didn't have abundance at that time, there were many better systems they could pick that they knew about at the time.
petsfed 2y ago
I understood the "extremist violent rhetoric" to refer specifically to accelerationists (in the states, we have the Boogaloo boys, but there are others), whose explicit goal is to accelerate the (from their perspective) inevitible collapse of the current order, to replace it with their own order. Often times, but not always, this is married to a both a doomsday-prepper I-can-go-it-alone mentality, as well as a libertarian theory of government.
- keybored 2y ago
  There are currently many different extremist groups out there. So I don’t know why you went with that.
  - petsfed 2y ago
    Because unlike other kinds of extremist, violent, revolutionary political movements, those from the accelerationist + prepper mindset are explicitly opposed to modern life. Think Ted Kaczynski (that is, the Unabomber). Not all violent extremists are focused on tearing down the modern technological order. ISIS, for instance, is only interested in the end of modern morality, but (evidently, based on their PR/recruiting arm) have no special qualms with modern media technology, industrialization, etc. The Red Army Faction was only opposed to the modern (at the time) government of Germany and a poorly defined concept of capitalism. But there is a specific kind of violent extremist who thinks that computers and mass production and factory farming are the problem. And I understood the GP to be referring to them.
brigadier132 2y ago
I was intentionally vague and not picking sides. Extremist violent rhetoric encompasses communists and fascists and anyone else willing to kill people to tear the system down. If you think I'm talking about the Israel / Palestine thing. It was not what I was thinking about. I was thinking about the US specifically but it also applies to other nations with strong personal freedoms, rule of law, and general economic prosperity. Advocating for revolution in such places is very dumb.
- Kbelicius 2y ago
  Are you aware that the system we have today needed people willing to kill to tear the then existing systems down?
  - brigadier132 2y ago
    Yes, for freedom. What would a modern day American revolution be for?
    - Kbelicius 2y ago
      For freedom, what else? The communist revolutions were also fought for freedom. > Extremist violent rhetoric encompasses communists and fascists and anyone else willing to kill people to tear the system down. It seems that at the end of the day you are not against anyone willing to kill people to tear the system down.

brigadier132 2y ago

> The problem is that this is often used to tell people indirectly that they should stop with their political complaints It's a tell that you conflate political complaints with extremist violent rhetoric.

Folcon 2y ago
I would say that in this forum we try to be charitable to each other and it's certainly the way I like to conduct myself. The poster you're replying to has so far merely provided you with an opportunity to clarify or expand on what you would consider "extremist violent rhetoric". We're all pretty curious people here, and I would say reasonably opinionated, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to ask you to clarify your position. We're not going to get to the high level of discourse we like and expect in this space without a bit of curiosity and generous assumptions to our fellow posters =)...
keybored 2y ago
Like I said, when you vaguely point to something in the Zeitgeist I have to guess. I made my assumption clear so don’t try to make this into a gotcha. Specifically extremist, violent, political[1] rhetoric is subsumed by political complaints in general. So if you mean conflate as in draw an equivalence then that is clearly a wrong inference on your part. [1] This adjective wasn’t in your original comment hence my guess.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  You don't seem to be following the site rule of "charitable interpretation" here. This reads more like "legalistic nitpicky interpretation" - that is, like bad faith. (Yes, good faith/charitable interpretation can lead to misunderstandings when some things are left unsaid. No, I don't think maximum nitpickiness is the answer to that.)
  - keybored 2y ago
    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

afthonos 2y ago

As far as I use the term, extremists are people who advocate for tearing the system down via revolution and rebuilding from scratch. They have no idea what it takes to build this modern world, but they love the idea of guillotines.

keybored 2y ago
Some people complain about taxation on tea or the lack thereof instead of appreciating how privileged they are to have access to Oriental tea.
- vsnf 2y ago
  Not having a representative vote in parliament was kind of annoying, but what do I know
  - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
    Nitpick & a tangent, but: Being properly represented in a democratic system is not the same as being able to vote for someone.
    - vsnf 2y ago
      Fair enough, the chant as we learned it was “no taxation without representation”, so you win this one. But my point was that it wasn’t just childish tantrums about taxes, it was also about being forced to buy into a monopoly, not getting any say in the matter, having local business blockaded, etc.
      - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
        For what it’s worth: I wasn’t at all disputing your general argument, just wanted to elaborate on a pet peeve of mine. Cheers!
- Jensson 2y ago
  Those people didn't have abundance at that time, there were many better systems they could pick that they knew about at the time.

petsfed 2y ago

I understood the "extremist violent rhetoric" to refer specifically to accelerationists (in the states, we have the Boogaloo boys, but there are others), whose explicit goal is to accelerate the (from their perspective) inevitible collapse of the current order, to replace it with their own order. Often times, but not always, this is married to a both a doomsday-prepper I-can-go-it-alone mentality, as well as a libertarian theory of government.

keybored 2y ago
There are currently many different extremist groups out there. So I don’t know why you went with that.
- petsfed 2y ago
  Because unlike other kinds of extremist, violent, revolutionary political movements, those from the accelerationist + prepper mindset are explicitly opposed to modern life. Think Ted Kaczynski (that is, the Unabomber). Not all violent extremists are focused on tearing down the modern technological order. ISIS, for instance, is only interested in the end of modern morality, but (evidently, based on their PR/recruiting arm) have no special qualms with modern media technology, industrialization, etc. The Red Army Faction was only opposed to the modern (at the time) government of Germany and a poorly defined concept of capitalism. But there is a specific kind of violent extremist who thinks that computers and mass production and factory farming are the problem. And I understood the GP to be referring to them.

brigadier132 2y ago

I was intentionally vague and not picking sides. Extremist violent rhetoric encompasses communists and fascists and anyone else willing to kill people to tear the system down. If you think I'm talking about the Israel / Palestine thing. It was not what I was thinking about. I was thinking about the US specifically but it also applies to other nations with strong personal freedoms, rule of law, and general economic prosperity. Advocating for revolution in such places is very dumb.

Kbelicius 2y ago
Are you aware that the system we have today needed people willing to kill to tear the then existing systems down?
- brigadier132 2y ago
  Yes, for freedom. What would a modern day American revolution be for?
  - Kbelicius 2y ago
    For freedom, what else? The communist revolutions were also fought for freedom. > Extremist violent rhetoric encompasses communists and fascists and anyone else willing to kill people to tear the system down. It seems that at the end of the day you are not against anyone willing to kill people to tear the system down.