Notices by bailey//rockruff⚪ (ctrlaltdog@chitter.xyz), page 107

@radicalgraffiti @nventous you yourself just spoke of people wanting to be involved to "sabotage" these meetings, i see no reason why people wouldn't show up just because they feel like their opinion matters more than others.

if we're gonna assume good faith here, then a consensus can be reached in the same way only people involved will bother showing up; common sense and courtesy

@monorail relatable af

it always depresses me to think of how i had that advantage over others, being raised to like the things i do.

on the other hand though, there are so many things i wish i could've been allowed to enjoy that were barred from amab folks...

@radicalgraffiti @nventous say 30 people show up to discuss a new highway they want to build. 3 people from families that would have to be relocated, insist that the highway can be built in a different place with minimal consequence. the other 27 people don't want the highway to be moved because it's more convenient in the original spot. so they decide to vote on moving it or not moving it. and majority obviously wins.

that's a horrible way of doing things.

@radicalgraffiti @nventous if the majority likes their solution more than the marginalised, they can end the discussion and push for a vote without coming to an agreement, where instead an "all but one or less" system would have to come to an agreement that everyone is happy with before proceeding, and then you don't need to vote.

@radicalgraffiti @nventous voting doesn't account for the maximum it accounts for the majority. consensus ensures the most people get to have a say, offer their solutions and misgivings, and come to an agreement that works with almost everybody.

like, if one person is a bit upset, but they're not the one primarily affected, while all other people who are primarily affected are mostly happy, that's better than voting and only having 51%, none of which could actually be most affected.

it's all really, really silly. if something makes you uncomfortable, think about whether it's really worth making a big deal out of or if it's better just to ignore the thing and let people be happy.

because making a big deal out of it won't really make you feel better, it'll just make other people feel as uncomfortable as you or worse (usually the latter, especially when it comes to oppression)

our society is super hecked up solely because everyone wants to insist all the big problems in society are caused by people who are only slightly different than them, who are in reality causing them only minor discomfort at worst

we keep insisting that minor discomfort is a reason to exclude people, shun people, hurt/kill them

@nventous so in a society where consensus is the norm, and the stakes are real, the marginalised have a stronger voice and more power than in any other system.

@nventous yeah but here's the thing: if there's no power structure, no laws, no imposing force like police or military, then the individual holds all the power.

and i guarantee you a marginalised person will fight harder for their life than a bigot will fight just to take it. bigots are cowards, and people that have higher stakes in an argument will always win if given the power to do so.

what we can do, is let everyone have a say in the discussion, to the people they have to spend time around the most; the other people in their communities. it's super easy to talk within smaller groups and make decisions that benefit EVERYONE as much as possible. not everyone will be happy, no, because no system is perfect. but it's a much better system than "entire country votes on binary issue"

for larger issues, representatives can be used, though it's preferable to keep power small.

this often requires decision making that is done on multiple levels, with lots of involved discussion, debate, and perhaps even a whole slurry of multiple outcomes. we can't just streamline everything by insisting everyone in an entire country has to follow one specific set of laws/rules. not even having a set of rules on a per-city basis is specific enough. laws are always meant to cater to the majority, and we cannot treat politics like they're absolute.

balance is the key to life. majority vote is a form of imbalance, a way to uphold the status quo and ignore minortiy/marginalised voices. it's a way to reduce decisions to "yes" and "no" when they're always way more complicated.

it pushes the idea that compromise is needed when what we actually need is consensus; instead of doing what the majority wants, we can instead do what has the most benefit to everyone involved, or at least whatever route has the least consequences overall

we often talk about unity. what we don't talk about is how unity often leads to putting the opinions of people we "like" more over the opinions of others because listening to everyone and weighing every option is "too much work"

this can be solved by having smaller groups that all come to their own conclusions and then meshing together to make bigger decisions.

but instead, we insist we gotta do things like simplify decision-making into reductive shit like voting. "majority vote rules"

@bug what ingredients?

@cocoron a mesh network of people!

yesterday while washing my dog i had to bend over a lot and hurt my back pretty badly but i kept doing chores anyway. later when i went to bed, a few minutes into laying down my lower back started to hurt so severly i was basically whimpering. it lasted for like 10 minutes. i could barely move

was not fun on top of the lump in my armpit still causing me trouble

thanks body i love you too

@KitRedgrave you just described half the people on social media these days including me

@nventous wouldn't be surprised if the hate against jorts is a dig on poverty since a lot of people make their own jorts by cutting up pairs of old and/or ruined jeans

the meme however is probably just a lot of people being amused by the word "jorts" (jean shorts) itself, because let's face it, joining two words together is fun