In my twitter polls a surprisingly large amount of people vote for 'small concrete good' as opposed to 'large abstract good' - for example, more people voted to 'save the life of a child' than 'prevent gender roles from reverting to the 1950s'
-
Show this thread
-
Even though 1950's gender roles would probably end or fuck up countless more childrens' lives (no abortion, anti-divorce pressure prevents a wife from leaving an abusive husband, etc.)
4 replies 2 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
This is exemplary of a really worrying tendency overall - people look at a problem and think "We should fix that," without thinking about the large-scale, long-term impacts of the solution, or considering why the problem arose in the first place
2 replies 8 retweets 56 likesShow this thread -
For example, prostitution sometimes leads to exploitation. Yes, that sucks - but outlawing prostitution *would be even worse* in the same way reverting to 1950s gender roles to save a dying child would be worse, or criminalizing drugs to prevent overdoses would be worse.
2 replies 1 retweet 34 likesShow this thread -
you agree with me so far but I've got my eye on that gun control horizon
3 replies 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
Does gun ownership result in higher gun deaths? Probably. Is it worth it? I think.... probably yes. I don't trust the systems in power. Not a tiny bit. And our entire civilization is built under the echo of the threat of force.
5 replies 8 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
The gun control debate is about safety - but I see it less about safety from gun crime and more about the safety of the people from the structures that rule over us. That question seems to have far more lives at stake.
9 replies 4 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
And to the inevitable "the government's guns are bigger than ours so it doesn't matter" If I want to kill your cancer, I kill you, and all my big guns make it easy. If I want to kill my cancer, I undergo lots of careful drugs and chemotherapy, and all my big guns mean nothing.
2 replies 4 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
The war machine was designed against other countries. If the government turns the war machine against itself, it risks going down with it. And maybe it will take that risk - but an armed populace makes it less likely.
15 replies 8 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Aella_Girl
Not sure there exist many scenarios in which the populace is willing to turn to armed rebellion and things haven’t already fallen that far into chaos; if people are resorting to guns as a means of defense against govt. I don’t see much social cohesion/stability left to sacrifice.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I agree - but a bouncer doesn't have to kick people out of the bar *that often* - simply knowing a bouncer is present can have a tempering effect on people's behavior.
-
-
Replying to @Aella_Girl
Fair enough, though democracy still accomplishes this better IMO - “things I won’t be re-elected for” is usually a much lower threshold than “things my constituents will shoot me to stop.” (And the democratic process I expect would be *very* hard to eradicate from within.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Democracy needs to reflect underlying power dynamics or it's *easy* to eradicate. Look at all the countries today where a party got elected, and once in power, started stripping the democracy. It's the modern route to dictatorship. Venezuela, Turkey, Russia, Philippines(?)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.