I wonder what those people claim they keep politics and science seperated. You know, because if you get a lab coat you’re immune

I think of it like this:

Lacking fundamental critique of the political economy, they believe the liberal narrative of the market and democratic institutions would bring about a fair or good economy.

Either you stop believing that, wich comes with quite a reorientation towards your own society, history and biography with significant social consequences ("what are you, a socialist now?) and mental stress (radical opposition is not exactly calming).

…or you assume there is something disturbing your otherwise functioning order and ideology from the outside. Damn those immigrants, if it it wasn’t for them there would be more jobs, higher wages, less crime and I’d finally get all that trickle down.

This latter is the energetically more efficient choice for each individual, and importantly, this really is true - as long as there is no collective perspective of systemic change, wich of course in turn only materializes when people make their bet for the possible, not the actual.

This perspective doesn’t really exist atm, it’s not in sight and nobody talks about it. This is the result of anticommunism and a massive failure of the left.

We need to be couragous and make room for utopian thought while giving opportunities to experience and try solidaric socialization. This makes not being idiot a convincing alternative.

“Strawman” - and then you just go with “vegans”… so all? Most? Some? Or maybe just the tiniest percentage? I think you understand for wich ones my argument applies and how “strawman” doesn’t, cause numbers. You know, if you pay attention…

Ok lets cut the rhetorics, I was trying to be sincere. I think you might wanna pay some more of that attention (omg sry I stop now) to “dialectic”. This does explicitly not mean you can turn the thing around and solely look at the other side.

So of course no change ever happens if all those one persons don’t do anything. But they will only change history if they change the underlying structures. To do so, they have to overcome their individualistic constriction and reach collective agency.

You gotta organize. The market won’t do, since it is THE form of organization that makes everyone a single player. Both, in their acting and in their consciousness.

This statement (about everyone single personal effort) only becomes meaningful when you take into consideration why people don’t. If you do, you will encounter the dialectics of structure and “personal choice” and how complicated history is and how it is not at all about “everybody make a small change in their life”.

The liberal feverdream of individual solutions for structural problems is bound to end up in “I buy good groceries”.

And, eventhough veganism is a good thing to do, this is why I’m personally so annoyed by vegan communities.

I dont know if reducing your personal sin count or whatever is a substitute for radical critique and political action, or an add-on, so I didn’t downvote. But maybe it explains some of it.

No great wisdom either, but my main thought about this is that games are designed to keep your dopamine coming (maybe overly nature scientific way of saying: they are exciting, rewarding).

Other activities can do that to, but some are rewarding in a more subtle way or more on a long term. Like, not “ringring yOu fOuNd DIAMOND!!”. So in comparison with games they might not trigger your motivation (dopamin?) as quickly.

On the other hand they are probably better at making you feel more general connectedness, belonging, sense, emotional diversity, etc.

So my advice (wich I struggle alot to follow myself) is: Avoid or limit the other dopamine traps like random scrolling and give yourself and the not-designed- for-dopamine-optimization-world some time, some patient goodwill. This might make that good ol’ world shine bright enough to not get bored all the time.

Dude, get organized

… nach ab kommt Arbeit

… after off work follows

Oh I see

How often did ruling actors of any historic social constellation give up ruling by themselves?

May it be - just spontaneous thoughts here - that those beeing ruled over have to do the emancipation?

Whenever you’re in such a situation: Everything credit card format is your friend

Means.tv has a weekly good news thing. Check it out!

The fight for hegemony is always a cultural one. Cultural workers positioning themselves in political conflicts, IS struggle for ethical-moral leadership. Here society fights out what interpretation of the social world is leading, and thus on the long run, which political alliance will be able to lead society.

Ooh I see. Thats one solid mix-up. But I still think its good to take it seriously as a controversy, even though it shouldn’t be as it’s positive change. The backlash shows it’s still a fight to be faught

Of course you can. The female m&m was not depicted as a feminist though, was it?

Might be a free win for the company, which of course only cares about profit, but I think it’s still somewhat important development of discourse as it is the dismounting of sexism

I don’t know if you have noticed, but cartoon characters depicted as female are usually depicted as sexy. Almost always in pubs.

If you care about oppression, you will understand how the reduction to being sexy for men (“objectification”) of women all over society is important. Imagine the violence of not being seen as a person by default, an agent, but an object to male desire, the male gaze.

Again and again, since the wake of feminism, men bring up that relativist argument. Oh you feel oppressed because over your whole lifetime and that of your mother and sisters men treat you like a peace of pretty meat? Well, wrong, honey, look at “literal real problems”.

This is the relativist argument I was talking about

Playing off one kind of oppression against another has never done any good to emancipatory endeavor (aka the left)

Well, kinda, yeah. Discoursive power is a thing and brings sorrow. The recent change (also called “wokeness”) that adresses the reproduction of sexism is accordingly important.

As I understood that post, it redicules said change in discourse. So it contains this discoursive element of men making fun of feminism, or at least applying some whataboutism, as seen my fellow responder, doesn’t it?

And I mean that, maybe I’m wrong. I’m open to criticism.

“Hello I’m a man and the public objectification of women as per se sexual objects in popculture is not relevant. Am I right guys hahaha?”

I thinl you would really need to adress my short answer to your comment if you take this forum or it’s members serious in any way. This also means you’d need to do it if you take your own Impetus serious…