@jeremiah @gemlog I still believe Dostoyevsky was right: most people love people in general and hate them in particular. It's why social media and its concomitant anonymity or pseudonymity seems to 'succeed' so admirably: there's neither honour nor shame in it because all can be 'erased' or 'reinvented' at a hat's drop. Because we don't know one another, we can say, do, or be anything or anyone but, fundamentally, trust needs to be built, all the same, between the persons whom we assume each of us are; otherwise, we are trapped in games of language, Wittgensteinian, and are wasting one another's time and, thus, lives. Fundamentally, all these things, tools, media, fediverses must build on love, for love, and for one another's sake, or we're just flappin' our gums.
@jeremiah @gemlog That's a lovely idea. I didn't know that was the case. Here I was, thinking that learning how to tie the carrick bend would be my day's highlight! Groovy stuff! Thanks!
@jeremiah @gemlog In this day and age, I believe we can use this query as the litmus test of our politics; borders, international, national, provincial, municipal, &c.: yea or nay? What say ye to these things?
@gemlog @jeremiah I would tend to agree with you regarding the scale of governance. Aristotle said somewhere that a city should be no larger than a herald's cry.
@gemlog @jeremiah A friend of mine wrote to me that people need to be moving toward you in order to hear you. What I sense is that people are moving apart, toward monologue and away from dialogue, the dialogue of Martin Buber and Bahktin (if I remember rightly) that changes folks from things (I-It) to people (I-Thou).
@jeremiah @ademan @gemlog Matters bigger than ideology and politics are no more and no less than loving our neighbours as ourselves and our enemies, turning them from strangers into friends.
@jeremiah @gemlog I think so many of these disagreements could be settled if we attended, seriously and severely, only to localized issues, bent on caring for and supporting those whom we actually see face-to-face and know, however dimly.
@jeremiah @gemlog As for 'free speech', is there a line being drawn (on Anishinaabeg land in settler-colonial law, there is a line between 'free' and 'hate' speech, for example) between it and 'hate speech'?
@Shufei old timey radical labor appropriation toots! they lifted that from IWW, I'm sure. but who needs appeasement in the face of revolt when you can architect total war
@suzaneraslan Both your points make perfect sense and I understand where you're coming from. Supporting those who have been hurt is absolutely crucial in these times. As the Buddhists would say, May you be well.
@inkslinger @angle That's a great idea! I think @inkslinger is right, though, that the Wobblies are supposed to be. They did organize harm-reduction workers in Windsor ON, last I heard, which is pretty awesome. It may be good to have all workers at a given work-place, regardless of job or employment level, organize into one union, as One Big Union was a tactic that IWW was definitely attempting. It'd be good to see education workers assembled into one union and not divided into age categories of 'elementary' and 'secondary' and 'post-secondary' &c.
@suzaneraslan The cure to hate speech is not less speech, but more, at least according to the American Civil Liberties Union. If the brocialists come--whatever a brocialist be, anyway--overwhelm their dehumanization with the radical insistence of humanization. Stereotypes cannot abide relationships and stories and the truth of meeting one another, I've found; evil, said Sartre, is the systematic substitution of the abstract for the concrete.