luciferofastora

I think any intelligent person would want to contribute to such a system. But ideally shouldn't be forced.

I think it's a matter of education, not (just) intelligence: If you understand how insurance and social security and all that work (and you trust the ones administering the funds do so fairly and faithfully), then you'll probably be willing to pay for peace of mind. Intelligent people can still make mistakes or underestimate risk, so I wouldn't trust them to arrive at that conclusion on their own, but they'll probably understand the reasoning more easily than others. Conversely, I think less intelligent people can understand it as well, though they may require a different or more personal approach for explanation.

I don't need God and the Bible to have a reason for trying to be kind to others and be forgiving towards people who try their best, but slip up, as humans tend to.

What makes faith so tempting is the idea of bringing order to the absurd. There are things I can't control in life, but if I trust someone else to sort them out, I don't need to worry so much. The promise of love, salvation and protection is a powerful draw in this increasingly hostile world. Easy answers to the uncertainties plaguing me are highly convenient. Far-right supremacist ideologies hit many of those notes too.

I miss my faith. Well, that's not accurate; I miss the comfort and the relief of asking someone else to take care of things troubling me. I miss the fuzzy feeling when I decide that some arbitrary boon is a divine token of love. I miss the optimism that it'll all work out. I miss the dream of heaven.

Apostasy is fucking painful. So many times, I wished I could just go back to believing. I can absolutely understand how people would willingly lean into that comfortable lie. I also know the slide into bigotry.

"Love thy neighbour" can be a fulcrum to break out of that delusion, but it won't be enough on its own.

Romans and Thessalonias, two parishes Paul wrote letters to; the "books" comprised of those letters are named after the respective parish.

"___ is not political" just pairs nicely with "I'm not into politics". The perfect excuse to hold a political stance while also ignoring all the other political issues: moving the target so it matches where you hit.

Music knows no ideological boundaries

What even does that mean? It's fine to say or whatever you want, as long as you can put it in some musical context?

Imma write a jolly song then to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, with the chorus being "Murder, murder all dictators × 3 / Sic temper Tyrannis", see how happy they are to ignore that one.

You'll get no argument from me ;-)

Well, if they wear the flag, display the Swastika, do the salute or go on about white supremacy, that's a pretty solid hint.

A Nazi is (originally) a particular brand of fascism, but much like champagne, it has become a generic term for the whole family of ideologies. The "ur-fascist" definition by Umberto Eco, who was witness to the fascist regime of Mussolini, highlights a few key traits if fascist ideology like a cult of tradition, emphasis on machismo and action over thought, obedience over independence, contempt for pacifism and weakness and populism that leverages frustrations, conspiracy theories and fears to rally its followers against some perceived enemy.

Not every trait is fascist on its own, but neither does some movement need to tick all boxes to be fascist. There's sure to be some grey area, but if you have people rushing to inflict violence on anyone looking differently, spurred on by a guy promising to restore some ambiguous past glory by blaming the economic and social troubles on foreigners and beating the war drums... yeah, well, eventually the indicators start piling up.

Depending on the stakes, yes. It is categorically better than not voting at all.

There is still the spoiler effect to consider, which may make voting third party a worse strategy in the complex, blind game that elections are. In elections where that isn't as big of a risk, it's a good way to indicate dissatisfaction with the status quo and the parties on offer. If there is a particularly convincing third party that many agree on, it also communicates what people do want.

In presidential elections, in a country where the president already had so much power even before this whole shitshow, when one candidate is a much greater threat to the basic feasability of resistance, it's a dangerous gamble, risking much for a fairly slim chance at an all-or-nothing victory.

FPTP is one of the many things that are fucked up, but not every election has that kind of impact, and particularly if you're in states where one party is so dominant that the spoiler effect is negligible anyways, it may be the more valuable choice.

Agreed on all points. It's kinda like a robbery – you probably won't arbitrarily hand a random stranger your wallet, but if they point a knife, things look different.

Though in this case, it's the robber barons getting mugged by their victims.

If, for whatever reason, the police collectively decides to no longer enforce the commands of those in power and no other group steps up to violently defend the status quo, a peaceful revolution in the form of civil disobedience would be conceivable.

Getting to that point without some measure of violence is what I believe to be unlikely – not impossible, mind you, and I very much hope for it, but it's quite likely that an attempt to create such a consensus would (at least initially) be violently suppressed just as violent resistance would.

Even if it is achieved, the new society will need to guard itself against opportunistic egoists seeking to exploit the new power vacuum. Here too there may be at least an initial period of violence until that new dynamic is clear.

As long as there are people willing to hurt others for their own benefit, they will have to be fought.

But we should try to fight as little as possible.

The success of diplomacy and peaceful protest hinges on the existence of a credible threat that the alternative (war and riots, respectively) will be worse. Even if a (mostly) peaceful solution should be found, I suspect there will have to be some measure of violence to get that point across.

As others point out, the elites won't go down quietly, and as long as there are bootlicks willing to fight on their behalf, they'll rather let their bootlicks die than make concessions.

So while I don't think violent revolutions are good for their own sake, they may be a necessary evil for good ends.

Revolutions stand or fall with public support. Voting is the most visible way to establish public sentiment. People like to quote that only a third of the US actually elected Trump, but do we have a clear idea of just how many oppose him, if so many voters apparently never expressed their opinion in any measurable way?

Doing nothing and complaining on the internet is useless. Doing something is scary. If you knew you had your community at your back, wouldn't you feel more confident to step up?

You're right that people need to know that voting won't be enough, but it's still important in order to communicate the public opinion that separates a revolution from a coup.