The American taxpayer doesn’t get to choose where their taxes go, so they can’t be responsible for atrocities caused by that money. Joe Biden is the president; I understand that there are checks and balances that prevent him from making wild changes out of left field, but he definitely has the power to stop sending weapons to a country he himself has said has gone too far. Would that decision have repercussions for himself and the population at large? Of course. Would those repercussions be significant enough to warrant continuing to massacre innocent people to avoid them? Fuck no.
The fact that Biden chooses not to make that stand is damning, even if he’s still the candidate I’ll be voting for to prevent the worst outcome. In the end, Biden’s choices demand that action be taken by the population, and that action will need to be more than just waiting 4 years and hoping the next candidate isn’t as bad; real efforts rivaling the civil rights movement will need to be taken in order to push our government back toward being acceptable again by the time we’re voting in new candidates.
You’re right. I’m a disgrace. Each and every one of us has the power to start a revolution, but we don’t, and that makes each and every one of us a failure. I talk a big game, but I’m not going to be the one to rise up and stop warmongering. All I have the willpower to do is to hope that someone else finds that strength, and to point out the hypocrisy that I and every other person who supports Joe Biden while pretending to have a clear conscious displays.
Yeah, anyone that doesn’t publicly self-flagellate in the right terms about voting for Biden deserves to be ridiculed by someone that does. It’s only fair ;)
I guess I’m just a pragmatist and recognize my vote is my voice and no amount of moralistic whining at strangers online will help anyone anywhere. But I like your energy.
Each and every one of us has the power to start a revolution, but we don’t, and that makes each and every one of us a failure.
Or that the cult of heroism and martyrdom is a relic of fascist, proto-fascist, and religious ideologies, and that there is an acceptable middle ground between “Doing nothing” and “Giving up your entire life or even identity for The Cause” that is not merely acceptable, but actively praiseworthy.
All I have the willpower to do is to hope that someone else finds that strength, and to point out the hypocrisy that I and every other person who supports Joe Biden while pretending to have a clear conscious displays.
Man, of all my fucking sins, “Supports the far less vile of the only two realistic choices in a shitshow of an election” isn’t one of them. With regards to that, I have a clear conscience, and so should you, probably.
Heroes are either people in the right place at the right time, or maniacs from day one. If you haven’t been elite-schmoozing top-of-your-class revolution-plotting since you turned 18, Ataturk style, you probably aren’t a maniac.
Be a good person. Be a good citizen. Nothing more can be reasonably asked of those of us just struggling to make it by in life. You don’t have to be a hero to be a decent human being. The world would not function, and billions would suffer more, without those of us putting in what we can, when we can. I’m not going to condemn myself for that, and I’m sure as shit not going to condemn billions of others who are struggling for not playing the martyrdom game.
Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would’ve still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves? Or the American revolution? Would the Nazis have been stopped without military cooperation from nearly ever surrounding country? I’m not saying that positive change CAN’T come about through small incremental steps, but I certainly don’t believe that all change can be made so peacefully, nor do I believe that this scenario can be resolved as such.
There’s a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you’re not doing all you can. There’s a middle ground between “I’m perfect and have never done wrong.” and “I must flog myself in the streets for my sins.”
Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would’ve still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves?
Do you think the civil rights movement succeeded because everyone involved was all-in for the cause?
Man, the vast majority of those involved in civil rights causes had lives of their own - of which campaigning for civil rights was only a portion. Most people, in every age, in every class, in every demographic, spend most of their time living their private lives according to how they deem fit, not spending all their free time and resources contributing to greater causes. And without those same people, the civil rights movement would never have succeeded. It’s not about ‘not making waves’, it’s about accepting that your contribution to a greater cause is not necessarily going to be a significant part of the cause or a significant sacrifice from your life!
There’s a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you’re not doing all you can. There’s a middle ground between “I’m perfect and have never done wrong.” and “I must flog myself in the streets for my sins.”
There really isn’t. Doing ‘all you can’ is an unreasonable request. When you judge yourself not simply by what you judge to be a reasonable contribution from your life, but by your capacity, you reduce yourself to what can be done for others - a martyr. There is not a single person in human history who has done ‘all they can’ for a cause.
Judge yourself by how you would judge others. And judge others kindly, according to their circumstances and the process of living one’s life.
That’s the beauty of a movement! Martin Luther King was devoted to the cause - he was all in, and as a result of that, others could be a part of the movement without needing to sacrifice themselves. The larger the movement grew, the less any individual participant needed to risk. But it needed a hero. It needed someone at the forefront for people to rally behind. I’m not saying everyone needs to be devoted to the cause, I’m saying one person needs to be devoted to the cause so that others can latch on regardless of their inability to be that hero.
MLK Jr. wasn’t all-in. He gave more than almost anyone else - but he didn’t give everything. Even as an intensely driven man from a young age, MLK Jr. still had hobbies, relationships (of varying kinds), luxuries, idle time. All things that could have been sacrificed to do more. And yet he is one of the most praiseworthy Americans to have ever lived.
And you are right that a cause needs people who give more than average to survive and thrive. But you are under no obligation to be that person, moral or otherwise. And, honestly, you are probably neither well-placed to become such a person, nor well-suited to the job, simply as a matter of statistics.
You don’t have to be a hero, and you don’t have to feel bad for not being a hero.
The world needs a movement, and yeah, it’s not an obligation for any one person to be the spearhead for that movement. It’s okay to not be the person that the world needs, but it’s still a failure. The thing is that it’s okay to fail; people view it as some indication that they’re either perfect or worthless, and that’s unhealthy. Realize that the world needs something, assess yourself to determine if you’re that person, and if you’re not, feel that disappointment in your failure, then accept it and move on. The world is too fucked up for everyone to shield themselves behind a perfect wall of innocence.
The American taxpayer doesn’t get to choose where their taxes go, so they can’t be responsible for atrocities caused by that money. Joe Biden is the president; I understand that there are checks and balances that prevent him from making wild changes out of left field, but he definitely has the power to stop sending weapons to a country he himself has said has gone too far. Would that decision have repercussions for himself and the population at large? Of course. Would those repercussions be significant enough to warrant continuing to massacre innocent people to avoid them? Fuck no.
The fact that Biden chooses not to make that stand is damning, even if he’s still the candidate I’ll be voting for to prevent the worst outcome. In the end, Biden’s choices demand that action be taken by the population, and that action will need to be more than just waiting 4 years and hoping the next candidate isn’t as bad; real efforts rivaling the civil rights movement will need to be taken in order to push our government back toward being acceptable again by the time we’re voting in new candidates.
Sounds like you just don’t want to face the consequences for not supporting genocide with your taxes so you’re kinda exactly like Biden ;)
You’re right. I’m a disgrace. Each and every one of us has the power to start a revolution, but we don’t, and that makes each and every one of us a failure. I talk a big game, but I’m not going to be the one to rise up and stop warmongering. All I have the willpower to do is to hope that someone else finds that strength, and to point out the hypocrisy that I and every other person who supports Joe Biden while pretending to have a clear conscious displays.
Yeah, anyone that doesn’t publicly self-flagellate in the right terms about voting for Biden deserves to be ridiculed by someone that does. It’s only fair ;)
There’s no such thing as fair when innocent people are being gunned down. There’s only doing what’s right, and failing to do so.
I guess I’m just a pragmatist and recognize my vote is my voice and no amount of moralistic whining at strangers online will help anyone anywhere. But I like your energy.
Or that the cult of heroism and martyrdom is a relic of fascist, proto-fascist, and religious ideologies, and that there is an acceptable middle ground between “Doing nothing” and “Giving up your entire life or even identity for The Cause” that is not merely acceptable, but actively praiseworthy.
Man, of all my fucking sins, “Supports the far less vile of the only two realistic choices in a shitshow of an election” isn’t one of them. With regards to that, I have a clear conscience, and so should you, probably.
Heroes are either people in the right place at the right time, or maniacs from day one. If you haven’t been elite-schmoozing top-of-your-class revolution-plotting since you turned 18, Ataturk style, you probably aren’t a maniac.
Be a good person. Be a good citizen. Nothing more can be reasonably asked of those of us just struggling to make it by in life. You don’t have to be a hero to be a decent human being. The world would not function, and billions would suffer more, without those of us putting in what we can, when we can. I’m not going to condemn myself for that, and I’m sure as shit not going to condemn billions of others who are struggling for not playing the martyrdom game.
Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would’ve still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves? Or the American revolution? Would the Nazis have been stopped without military cooperation from nearly ever surrounding country? I’m not saying that positive change CAN’T come about through small incremental steps, but I certainly don’t believe that all change can be made so peacefully, nor do I believe that this scenario can be resolved as such.
There’s a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you’re not doing all you can. There’s a middle ground between “I’m perfect and have never done wrong.” and “I must flog myself in the streets for my sins.”
Do you think the civil rights movement succeeded because everyone involved was all-in for the cause?
Man, the vast majority of those involved in civil rights causes had lives of their own - of which campaigning for civil rights was only a portion. Most people, in every age, in every class, in every demographic, spend most of their time living their private lives according to how they deem fit, not spending all their free time and resources contributing to greater causes. And without those same people, the civil rights movement would never have succeeded. It’s not about ‘not making waves’, it’s about accepting that your contribution to a greater cause is not necessarily going to be a significant part of the cause or a significant sacrifice from your life!
There really isn’t. Doing ‘all you can’ is an unreasonable request. When you judge yourself not simply by what you judge to be a reasonable contribution from your life, but by your capacity, you reduce yourself to what can be done for others - a martyr. There is not a single person in human history who has done ‘all they can’ for a cause.
Judge yourself by how you would judge others. And judge others kindly, according to their circumstances and the process of living one’s life.
That’s the beauty of a movement! Martin Luther King was devoted to the cause - he was all in, and as a result of that, others could be a part of the movement without needing to sacrifice themselves. The larger the movement grew, the less any individual participant needed to risk. But it needed a hero. It needed someone at the forefront for people to rally behind. I’m not saying everyone needs to be devoted to the cause, I’m saying one person needs to be devoted to the cause so that others can latch on regardless of their inability to be that hero.
MLK Jr. wasn’t all-in. He gave more than almost anyone else - but he didn’t give everything. Even as an intensely driven man from a young age, MLK Jr. still had hobbies, relationships (of varying kinds), luxuries, idle time. All things that could have been sacrificed to do more. And yet he is one of the most praiseworthy Americans to have ever lived.
And you are right that a cause needs people who give more than average to survive and thrive. But you are under no obligation to be that person, moral or otherwise. And, honestly, you are probably neither well-placed to become such a person, nor well-suited to the job, simply as a matter of statistics.
You don’t have to be a hero, and you don’t have to feel bad for not being a hero.
The world needs a movement, and yeah, it’s not an obligation for any one person to be the spearhead for that movement. It’s okay to not be the person that the world needs, but it’s still a failure. The thing is that it’s okay to fail; people view it as some indication that they’re either perfect or worthless, and that’s unhealthy. Realize that the world needs something, assess yourself to determine if you’re that person, and if you’re not, feel that disappointment in your failure, then accept it and move on. The world is too fucked up for everyone to shield themselves behind a perfect wall of innocence.