I tinker at programming and system administration. I also study history, philosophy, and language.
💬 - English, Esperanto
If you pass a shy guy and he doesnt acknowledge you, just keeps walking, until he comes to an obstacle and has to turn, or walks off the side of the platform.
This is as true to life as it is to Super Mario Brothers 2.
Although from personal experience, if they’re stressed they might act like that anyways.
For my understanding of it, social democracy is the idea that the existing capitalist controlled state can be gradually reformed into a worker controlled socialist state. This depends upon the capitialists which control the economy and the state to be willing to surrender their control, that is to say the source of their wealth, their capital. To my knowledge of history, in practice they have not been willing to do this, and frankly this is consistant, as a lot of their ideological literature regards the working class, the masses, the mob, the passive citizen, as subhuman.
The fundamental problem with this is that any conceits given to the working class can easily be repealed or sabotaged, providing the conservatives a basis for claiming that “it didnt work”, this has happened many times already.
The only way to make them surrender power is to leave them with no other option, to seize control and force them, and that. is a dictatorship. of the proletariat.
For my part i am often unsure.
You’ll find no sage here. When it comes to questions of how to think, I’d recommend people to read philosophy.
We’re talking about a person as a social role; a person as an idea vs a person as a reality. When I say ‘Man/Woman’, ‘Lover’, ‘Partner’, ‘Boyfriend/Girlfriend’, ‘attractive’, ‘sex’, certain thoughts come to mind, without context you likely have forms/images in your mind you would give to these words, idealized forms, possibly even multiple distinct forms for the same word, which are likely rooted in popular culture or lived experience.
Are you thinking more about the person, or the idealized form you associate with the context that person had in your life?
Can you remove the person from the role and still value them as a person?
If your ex were to love another, would you be able to have a genuinely positive reaction towards this?
“Love” is a word we should be careful with when referring to a former lover, thinking in those terms might cause confusion even if we’re attempting to mean it in the general sense. We often concieve of “love” as having some sort of profound meaning, but even if we’re not rejecting that line of reasoning outright, it is important we should distance ourselves from it in this case and answer the more basic question: Is this person, as they are, important to me? And maybe equally: Am I still of any importance to them? Because any real relationship is mutual.
That might be the limit of what I have to say on the matter, for the most part my study has been on the dialectics of relationships, not so much on how to think about them after the fact.
One of the important things to ask yourself is: do you miss the person themselves or the idea of the person? For my part i am often unsure. But if you miss them as an idea (partner, lover, companion, generalized personality traits) you should check yourself. If you miss them as a person perhaps you could assosiate with them on different terms, but you should be careful.
There does need to be some level of interpretation, though.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, however…
For instance, white supremacists love to cite black crime statistics.
Because the interpretation they give those statistics justifies their ideology. (As you know)
What is important is to make clear the interrelation of facts, and not to merely present obtuse statistics. One might call this interpretation, and i won’t argue semantics. Once the interrelation of things is known on a factual basis, the range of seemingly valid interpretations narrows considerably, increasing the likelihood that an individual can make meaningful judgements on a given topic. This degree of information ofc takes time, but given how much time I’ve seen ideologues babble nonsense and call it news, i’d actually be inclined to say time isn’t the issue.
“Truth” is an idea, something subject to interpretation by way of ideology, which seems to me one of the big problems in journalism today (and in the world at large). Facts are more objective, and i think that any good consumer of the news will not rely exclusively on the interpretations of facts (and sometimes not even facts) by others for forming their own awareness.
Recently my dentist advised i get some special high floride toothpaste ($25 for 2 tubes from the dental office), which i am supposed to use once a day and leave on my teeth (spitting out the excess) instead of rinsing. I’m told the floride will be absorbed into the outer layer of my teeth, making it more resistant to bacteria. Maybe you could look into something like that.
I saw someone say something similar elsewhere in the fediverse the other day, i will give you the same response: The West is not the World.
Your corner of the world might be getting worse (or more openly bad), but I don’t think the world as a whole is becoming more fascist; just the west and it’s satellites.
A few years ago i had a conversation with an old man doing door to door for a church event. I told him i didn’t think it would be approappropriate for me to attend because i am an athiest, he was shocked. “You don’t believe in god? I’ve never met anyone who didn’t believe in god in my entire life!” Yes, unless you’ve spent your whole life cloistered in your church you definitely have.
The Bible seems like the obvious answer, what might be a more interesting question is: what is the most influential book now?