Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
In the US Indians are the 3rd largest undocumented immigrant group
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2ld7r4432o.amp
though most do immigrate legally
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2ld7r4432o.amp
though most do immigrate legally
Is this a NAMELESS post ? or Logiko ?
I probably misread it, lol
Elon is already the shadow president without the scrutiny 
But ultimately Trump has power and could push Musk away. With that said, the billionaires and whatnot usually don't go for the WhiteHouse directly. They'd rather pull strings and all. You don't really need the presidency to rule.
Not a specialist but I think Dick Cheney was the last non-president with great power in the US.
Yeah we know. But like this is why I say my kinky brain would like to see the American law change so that he can
You might be onto something if you're saying that the push on the far-right can polarize the political field into two extremes.
But most of the Western countries are collapsing into far-right regimes and no radical or extreme left is seen anywhere except very sporadically.
You might be onto something if you're saying that the push on the far-right can polarize the political field into two extremes.
But most of the Western countries are collapsing into far-right regimes and no radical or extreme left is seen anywhere except very sporadically.
The fun part is that the US is one of the rare if not only western countries where you need to be born-citizen to be elected president. The UK, Germany and France don’t have that. I mean even Türkiye, India and China don’t ask you to be a born-citizen. He really chose the worse country to immigrate to.
No abortion is not a mom killing a foetus. It's a doctor killing it. Wtf are you even saying mate ?
Also, note that killing here, is not to be taken is an unethical thing to do, but an ethical one. Again, we are talking about abortion of a foetus, not the killing of a baby, to to be careful with the pro-life rethoric.
Okay... I see that someone is not using ethic but moral to justify pro-life rethoric. So I'm starting to lose interest discussing with you.
Yes, it can be ethical, and murder is a kill the hold no context or ethical reason. Here we are not talking about murder, but killing. And in this case the ending of the life of a foetus - that does not feel and does not have conscience - who is parasitating and threatenning the physical and mental health of the one pregnant.
If you are gonna start giving me moral arguments about killing and ignoring ethic, I will stop discussing on this stopping. I'm done trying to convert conservatist.
You refuted nothing as you used two different situation that have absolutely not the same ethical context. Again, as many of your arguments here, you are confusing moral and ethic thinking that you can just create an absolute argument without taking context into account.
It's not how reality works.
A radical feminist is not a feminist. It's a conservative version of a feminist, a conservative one with you prefer.
So yes, it's possible to turn a neonazi into a rad fem, but it would require a lot of data and a lot of rethinking from their part. Because there is still a massive masculinist gap to pass in this case.
But no, it is impossible to turn into a full on feminist (i'm talking about the feminist close to my current radical ideology) into one night. Simply because it is impossible to deliver the entire feminist knowledge and too many knowledge on materialism, marxism, liberalism etc.
It would need a lot more time than that, without mentionning the fact that for a person to accept this knowledge is an entire matter all together. Just so you understand, most liberal can't even accept that capitalism is a problem in their entire life despite being bombarded by feminist and anti-capitalist rethoric by leftist and being open to "debates". It would requiere a mind of an extrem flexibility (and frankly too much flexibility) to be able to accept feminism and anti-capitalism (because they are linked) in one night.
It's seems like you are vastly underestimating the amount of understanding that comes behind the fact of being a real anti-capitalist and anti-racist feminist, which you could call the opposite of a rapist. Just so you know, what I shared in the leftist library is just the very tip of the vast iceberg of leftist knowledge. It's only the very surface level.
To be the opposite of a nazi, you can't just say that you will fight fascism, you need to understand fascism, understand feminism, understand antiracism and antiimperialism, you need to understand the reasons that created the nazi situation in the first place, the failures of society the failure that we are creating again etc. This is not difficult to understand, but it's not a fast learning experience.
First because the knowledge is not centralized and because there are things that are not easy to accept.
Of course, if you had a brainwashing machine, it could be possible, but that not really the case today.
For the reason I just mentionned. It's physically impossible to deliver so much information AND accept this information.
Look at this thread, I only delivered a fraction of the information needed to become a average radical leftist (not even an anarchist or a communist) and it already seems IMPOSSIBLE for people to accept and to assimilate. And it's not a lack of trying different methods and different way of bringing the information. What i'm saying is long, but it's clear.
No I repeat, not unlikely in this case, physically IMPOSSIBLE. To transform a neonazi you would need something like the matrix transfert machine. It's too much information, too much understanding.
Again, take a look at the Leftist library. The video in there are around 20 to 40 minutes long and they are only here to bring you the very surface level of knowledge in those topic and most of the time, they require previous knowledge and understanding AND acceptance.
Example: To understand anti-psychiatry (something that I'm still struggling with), you need to understand anti-validism and anti-capitalism. You need to understand who validism is created by capitalism, who people are exploited by it how nazism's eugenism is an extention of capitalism BUT to understand anti-capitalism, you need to also fully understand feminism and anti-racism AND you need to understand a good chunk of what sociology is about IN ORDER TO understand what capitals TO understand why meritocracy is a problem AND ACCEPT that meritocracy does not exist and why it is a sellf justification of a system and why in reality people who call themselves liberals are actually the result of capitalism trying to survive..
And I did not even mention the fact that to be anti-validist, you need to be aware that non valid people are the one who will be forgotten the most at the end of the chain of oppressions and those who will sometimes suffer the most because they are seens by capitalist as sub-individuals. So to understand anti-validism you need to understand intersectionnality (which is something not all leftist do) AND you need to accept to be intersectional (which is something that even the most radical leftist are refusing to do because they often consider their own fight as the most legitimate one)
In other words, even leftists struggle to be efficient activists. And you want to make me believe that a neo-nazi could become someone like me in one night out of sheer will ?
Impossible. One knowledge is layered into another when we talk about the understanding of the material reality of the world, it's simply impossible with our current technology to distribute such an amount of knowledge AND being able to accept such an amount of knowledge AND understanding (because those are not the same thing, I could be knowledge about colonialism without really understanding it and it's relationship to our world today)..
How and I didn't even mention the fact that to know, understanding and accept an difficult information, you also need to know, understand AND accept the way this difficult information is based on AND know, understand and accept the way the information is delivered.
So you can easily double the difficulty of transformation here. I hope this time you understand why it's not possible, at least for such a case.
When I'm trying to explain things to people here, I'm not trying to convert them into leftists, it would be too hard to do. I'm simply trying push people to rethink their understanding of the world.
Killing is a different matter as I explain as killing can be caused by a various of things in an extrem situation and it's possible that the person does not have to change that much to become safe.
Rapes and the other cases I mentionned above is a different beast. Rape is caused by a lack of the understanding of the notion of consent and a lack of understanding and acceptance of our place as men in a patriarcal society added to that a patriarcal push to control women and to feel superior.
Regret after a threat is absolutely NOT sufficent to make a person safer. Regrets COULD be the result of a transformation happening and - in time - change the person as they understand what they did, why consent matters and their place in society etc. But this requires time and consent is something ALL men struggle with (even when we think we do not) >> Hence why women are afraid in the streets and why feminist often say 'all men are trash".
This lack of consent is created by patriarchy, it can't be negated just through regrets, there needs to be structural changes in the life of the person and a deep understanding. While the man who only regret might not rape again, he will still be a danger in the long run and a time bomb for other issues related to patriarchy (for example, a man who regret raping a woman, could choose to kill a woman instead one day and justify this by the fact of refusing to rape the person when in reality the action would be triggered by the same problem).
Regrets can trigger a change that will happen slowly, but it will not be enough.
And this is something we only understand by understanding patriarchy. Which takes time, acceptance and effort.
Quickly yes. For example, if a person know that they will be executed in the week, a change of hearth is possible (although I would like to see the records), but not a change of vision or behavior. A criminal might regret a murder Y but might still be dangerous and do a murder Z years later. Precisely because change never really happened, just a baseless one.
Now, it happens that people do not do the actions again, but in those case it does not mean the person suddenly became safe, it's just that the condition were not met for a repeat OR conditions were met for an real understanding.
But this can't happens if the person does not have access to a way to understand the stuff. You lock up a person in a room and expect them to have learned something new on day 7 (unless they already had access to a previous knowledge first). Prison are not meant for you to learn things, they are created to punish you and cast you away. It's not a good environement to change even under threat.
Being safe is not something you can just deduce alone when the system, your entire education and experience prevented you from understanding that in the first place before...
Of course it does. To point of the hypothesis is that to push the button to save this person, you need to want to push the button first, this is what free will is.
But to prevent you from wanting to push the button, you would need to have a reason not to push it. Which is why I say that there is no way for you to have a reason not to push it in that condition as the scenario does not include one.
Not really no.
You think it's the case because you believe in free will, but in reality, you have no choice, just an illusion of one. Not pushing the button in that scenario would create a reaction that would be unberable. It's not a reaction that your body would be able to accept so, it will push the button
You could say that this situation is very similar to when a star collaps under its own gravity after exhausting its fuel. The process creates a singularity and a black hole >> It's a physical phenomenon. it just happens that for us, the physical reaction is a little bit more complex and involve a lot of different more variables.
Out consciousness of our choice is simply the result of electrical signals, it happens BECAUSE OF and AFTER the existence of those signals which are themselves the result of other physical phenomenons (quantum or not, when do know for sure yet) in our brain in relationship to physical phenomenon outside of our body. The entire things is a big chain of causation.
Okay, then prove that to me then. Do you think that in this scenario, there would be a world where you could not push the button ?
Again, why I'm trying to show you is that there is no pressure on the will of a person, the pressure is an illusion too. It's part of the causation system. In reality, there is no possibility in this scenario for you to make another choice. In consequence, you will indubitably push the button.
It depend on the crime, for a criminal who murdered, yes, I think it's possible rapidely, for people who are acting because of systemic pressure and systemic missunderstanding.. it will be much longer as I explained previously.
At least if you want the person to be really safe at the end. If you are just aiming for the person to be just a little bit less dangerous I guess a month of instensive therapy or classes about consent could be enough. Depending on the flexibility of the mind I guess..
But I will never believe that a rapist can become safe in just one week or even two.
(also, note that I'm sayin "rapist" here but it's for the sake of the discussions and to make myself understandable, I actually refuses to essentialize the actions of a person to what they are (however horrible the action was). I consider, that in a better system, this principle of essentializing a person to their actions should stop. )
Unlikely yes. Generally, it is unlikely for a person who was sent to prison for big crimes to do it again, but they can be dangers for other reasons. Which is kind of a problem. Punishment does not deter, but it destroys a person, sometimes making them more dangerous (especially when the crime is not that big).
What we need is reconstruction. This can only be done through major structural and systemic change.
But it's possible
I'm talking about your vision of choice and change.
Your approach is idealistic. It's a romantacized version of what reality should be. And, it would be cool if it was possible, but it's not. We are part of the system, we are not functionning outside of it.
Extrem change in a short period of times ?
Again, read back the description of what it would take for a Nazi to become a radical leftist.
GRANTED... this would be one of the most extrem change possible. So I will grant you the fact that this might be one of the cases where extrem change is not possible in a short period of time while it COULD be possible for other less extrem scenarii. But we would need to make a case to case discussions.
I think a murder can change in a short period of time, but impossible for a rapist. For a racist ? Maybe it can take two week or even one if there is a big pressure.. for a incel ? Maybe it can take 1 month to deradicalize.. But again, it's a case to case..
That's not how radicality works..
You can't just transform into some radical racist just because you saw Trump spreads you fake numbers or datas about migrants.. you would need to be dived into a large number of informations for that. On top of that, you would need to gain over time a form of radical will to fight a system.
I think you could become a radical fighter over night.. but it wouldn't be really extrem, I means, there would need to be the right context for it (let's say that you might have lost a member of your family because of the bad system of health care) the sudden change of method would be the last straw but there would need to have a build up.
To because a far rightist (or a far leftist) there is a lot of informations that you need to accept first.. again.. it will take days or month depending of the flexibility of the mind and the critical defenses of the person.
You will say that I use my experience but it's important for you to understand the scale: I'm someone that can be influenced VERY EASILY. and yet, it took me aounrd 2years to fall into conspirationnism when I had negative 100 critical defenses. It took mea decade to go back to the left and critical thinking side despite living with engineers and scientific and being BOMBARDED with scientific and factual information all the way through.. and it took me around 3 years to become the radical leftist I am now while - once again - being bombarded with radical stuff and being highly open minded.
Imagine the flexibility of mind (and such flexibility would not be a good sign) taht it would require to be able to learn and integrate AND accept all those informations is a very short period of time... I mean, if you manage to find someone like that, be sure to note what they are telling you, because they might have the key to preserve humanity...
One truth will help you make one step, but you need a lot of data and the acceptance of this data to radicalize or deradicalize.
Indeed. Some people will be more flexible than other or less prompt to accept. But we are not machines, we can't reprogrammed the entire data base and our way of thinking just with one information or one one swoop.
We need to bathe in the pool of information for a long period of time. Sometimes month, sometimes years.. JUST TO ACCEPT THEM.
Radicalizing or deradicalizing someone or oneself it a hardcore process. Hey, test that: Try to make Ravager accept that Trans women as real women. See how long it will take for you to do that hehe. (it's very simple and I never was able to do it)
Wrong, I denied that my argumentation here was not empiristic, but logical.
Now, I do indeed need data for the most part to understand things. I'm not contradicting myself here hehe
A big fact about us human... Is that datas are not enough to change our mind, even when we are empirists.
And that's something I sprinkled all around my argument. It's the notion of acceptation of reality
While understanding a fact can be easy, accepting it as truth or even adjusting our behavior to this truth is not. It's why researcher are often prevented from making major discoveries, we all have biases that prevent us from accepting some simple facts.
If for example I am to tell to Nameless that portugese DID colonized and enslave people, this is a real documented data. He might need time to really understanding it, but even more time to accept it. Simply because he was educated in the vision that his ancestor were pacifist with native mainly due to a capitalistic and neo colonial education. OR if I were to demonstrate fact after fact the problem with capitalism, that I would give him the comparison of the dead because of capitalism and because of communism (which I already did), he would have clear and documented data showing that capitalism is immensely more hurtfull that communism.. and yet even if he starts to understand this informations, it will be hard as hell for him to accept that, because there is his entire personnal context that would enter the equation, his educations, his beliefs, the system he is living in etc.
This is why.. while knowing that they are homosexual, some people can't just accept it. Simply because accepting it would put them either in danger or it would require for them to rethink too much about their lives..
Financial reasons are part of suffering, it's not just an inconvenience when your pregnancy will bring you toward precarity. Also, show me the data about mental health beeing included please. I'm curious.
Well, I still disagree with them
It's a rare case where I think scientist are not going as far as they should to think about life. But this is not a debate I'm willing to have here. Sorry.
Human rights apply to birthed beings.
Now, I think there is a lacking in human rights as abortion should be rendered possible by a human right BECAUSE OF ethics.
This needs to be a future addition. But this will not benefit a foetus, I'm sorry. Again, it's a question of ethic, and not moral.
+1
You should watch Squid Games. lol
If only ..
Yeah, it's weird lol
Honestly, aside from France, I do not know a political force that is really radical to the left in Europe. There are movements, but not really enough to tip the balance.
I could be wrong tho..
Also, note that killing here, is not to be taken is an unethical thing to do, but an ethical one. Again, we are talking about abortion of a foetus, not the killing of a baby, to to be careful with the pro-life rethoric.
Okay... I see that someone is not using ethic but moral to justify pro-life rethoric. So I'm starting to lose interest discussing with you.
Yes, it can be ethical, and murder is a kill the hold no context or ethical reason. Here we are not talking about murder, but killing. And in this case the ending of the life of a foetus - that does not feel and does not have conscience - who is parasitating and threatenning the physical and mental health of the one pregnant.
If you are gonna start giving me moral arguments about killing and ignoring ethic, I will stop discussing on this stopping. I'm done trying to convert conservatist.
You refuted nothing as you used two different situation that have absolutely not the same ethical context. Again, as many of your arguments here, you are confusing moral and ethic thinking that you can just create an absolute argument without taking context into account.
It's not how reality works.
A radical feminist is not a feminist. It's a conservative version of a feminist, a conservative one with you prefer.
So yes, it's possible to turn a neonazi into a rad fem, but it would require a lot of data and a lot of rethinking from their part. Because there is still a massive masculinist gap to pass in this case.
But no, it is impossible to turn into a full on feminist (i'm talking about the feminist close to my current radical ideology) into one night. Simply because it is impossible to deliver the entire feminist knowledge and too many knowledge on materialism, marxism, liberalism etc.
It would need a lot more time than that, without mentionning the fact that for a person to accept this knowledge is an entire matter all together. Just so you understand, most liberal can't even accept that capitalism is a problem in their entire life despite being bombarded by feminist and anti-capitalist rethoric by leftist and being open to "debates". It would requiere a mind of an extrem flexibility (and frankly too much flexibility) to be able to accept feminism and anti-capitalism (because they are linked) in one night.
It's seems like you are vastly underestimating the amount of understanding that comes behind the fact of being a real anti-capitalist and anti-racist feminist, which you could call the opposite of a rapist. Just so you know, what I shared in the leftist library is just the very tip of the vast iceberg of leftist knowledge. It's only the very surface level.
To be the opposite of a nazi, you can't just say that you will fight fascism, you need to understand fascism, understand feminism, understand antiracism and antiimperialism, you need to understand the reasons that created the nazi situation in the first place, the failures of society the failure that we are creating again etc. This is not difficult to understand, but it's not a fast learning experience.
First because the knowledge is not centralized and because there are things that are not easy to accept.
Of course, if you had a brainwashing machine, it could be possible, but that not really the case today.
For the reason I just mentionned. It's physically impossible to deliver so much information AND accept this information.
Look at this thread, I only delivered a fraction of the information needed to become a average radical leftist (not even an anarchist or a communist) and it already seems IMPOSSIBLE for people to accept and to assimilate. And it's not a lack of trying different methods and different way of bringing the information. What i'm saying is long, but it's clear.
No I repeat, not unlikely in this case, physically IMPOSSIBLE. To transform a neonazi you would need something like the matrix transfert machine. It's too much information, too much understanding.
Again, take a look at the Leftist library. The video in there are around 20 to 40 minutes long and they are only here to bring you the very surface level of knowledge in those topic and most of the time, they require previous knowledge and understanding AND acceptance.
Example: To understand anti-psychiatry (something that I'm still struggling with), you need to understand anti-validism and anti-capitalism. You need to understand who validism is created by capitalism, who people are exploited by it how nazism's eugenism is an extention of capitalism BUT to understand anti-capitalism, you need to also fully understand feminism and anti-racism AND you need to understand a good chunk of what sociology is about IN ORDER TO understand what capitals TO understand why meritocracy is a problem AND ACCEPT that meritocracy does not exist and why it is a sellf justification of a system and why in reality people who call themselves liberals are actually the result of capitalism trying to survive..
And I did not even mention the fact that to be anti-validist, you need to be aware that non valid people are the one who will be forgotten the most at the end of the chain of oppressions and those who will sometimes suffer the most because they are seens by capitalist as sub-individuals. So to understand anti-validism you need to understand intersectionnality (which is something not all leftist do) AND you need to accept to be intersectional (which is something that even the most radical leftist are refusing to do because they often consider their own fight as the most legitimate one)
In other words, even leftists struggle to be efficient activists. And you want to make me believe that a neo-nazi could become someone like me in one night out of sheer will ?
Impossible. One knowledge is layered into another when we talk about the understanding of the material reality of the world, it's simply impossible with our current technology to distribute such an amount of knowledge AND being able to accept such an amount of knowledge AND understanding (because those are not the same thing, I could be knowledge about colonialism without really understanding it and it's relationship to our world today)..
How and I didn't even mention the fact that to know, understanding and accept an difficult information, you also need to know, understand AND accept the way this difficult information is based on AND know, understand and accept the way the information is delivered.
So you can easily double the difficulty of transformation here. I hope this time you understand why it's not possible, at least for such a case.
When I'm trying to explain things to people here, I'm not trying to convert them into leftists, it would be too hard to do. I'm simply trying push people to rethink their understanding of the world.
Killing is a different matter as I explain as killing can be caused by a various of things in an extrem situation and it's possible that the person does not have to change that much to become safe.
Rapes and the other cases I mentionned above is a different beast. Rape is caused by a lack of the understanding of the notion of consent and a lack of understanding and acceptance of our place as men in a patriarcal society added to that a patriarcal push to control women and to feel superior.
Regret after a threat is absolutely NOT sufficent to make a person safer. Regrets COULD be the result of a transformation happening and - in time - change the person as they understand what they did, why consent matters and their place in society etc. But this requires time and consent is something ALL men struggle with (even when we think we do not) >> Hence why women are afraid in the streets and why feminist often say 'all men are trash".
This lack of consent is created by patriarchy, it can't be negated just through regrets, there needs to be structural changes in the life of the person and a deep understanding. While the man who only regret might not rape again, he will still be a danger in the long run and a time bomb for other issues related to patriarchy (for example, a man who regret raping a woman, could choose to kill a woman instead one day and justify this by the fact of refusing to rape the person when in reality the action would be triggered by the same problem).
Regrets can trigger a change that will happen slowly, but it will not be enough.
And this is something we only understand by understanding patriarchy. Which takes time, acceptance and effort.
Quickly yes. For example, if a person know that they will be executed in the week, a change of hearth is possible (although I would like to see the records), but not a change of vision or behavior. A criminal might regret a murder Y but might still be dangerous and do a murder Z years later. Precisely because change never really happened, just a baseless one.
Now, it happens that people do not do the actions again, but in those case it does not mean the person suddenly became safe, it's just that the condition were not met for a repeat OR conditions were met for an real understanding.
But this can't happens if the person does not have access to a way to understand the stuff. You lock up a person in a room and expect them to have learned something new on day 7 (unless they already had access to a previous knowledge first). Prison are not meant for you to learn things, they are created to punish you and cast you away. It's not a good environement to change even under threat.
Being safe is not something you can just deduce alone when the system, your entire education and experience prevented you from understanding that in the first place before...
Of course it does. To point of the hypothesis is that to push the button to save this person, you need to want to push the button first, this is what free will is.
But to prevent you from wanting to push the button, you would need to have a reason not to push it. Which is why I say that there is no way for you to have a reason not to push it in that condition as the scenario does not include one.
Not really no.
You think it's the case because you believe in free will, but in reality, you have no choice, just an illusion of one. Not pushing the button in that scenario would create a reaction that would be unberable. It's not a reaction that your body would be able to accept so, it will push the button
You could say that this situation is very similar to when a star collaps under its own gravity after exhausting its fuel. The process creates a singularity and a black hole >> It's a physical phenomenon. it just happens that for us, the physical reaction is a little bit more complex and involve a lot of different more variables.
Out consciousness of our choice is simply the result of electrical signals, it happens BECAUSE OF and AFTER the existence of those signals which are themselves the result of other physical phenomenons (quantum or not, when do know for sure yet) in our brain in relationship to physical phenomenon outside of our body. The entire things is a big chain of causation.
Okay, then prove that to me then. Do you think that in this scenario, there would be a world where you could not push the button ?
Again, why I'm trying to show you is that there is no pressure on the will of a person, the pressure is an illusion too. It's part of the causation system. In reality, there is no possibility in this scenario for you to make another choice. In consequence, you will indubitably push the button.
It depend on the crime, for a criminal who murdered, yes, I think it's possible rapidely, for people who are acting because of systemic pressure and systemic missunderstanding.. it will be much longer as I explained previously.
At least if you want the person to be really safe at the end. If you are just aiming for the person to be just a little bit less dangerous I guess a month of instensive therapy or classes about consent could be enough. Depending on the flexibility of the mind I guess..
But I will never believe that a rapist can become safe in just one week or even two.
(also, note that I'm sayin "rapist" here but it's for the sake of the discussions and to make myself understandable, I actually refuses to essentialize the actions of a person to what they are (however horrible the action was). I consider, that in a better system, this principle of essentializing a person to their actions should stop. )
Unlikely yes. Generally, it is unlikely for a person who was sent to prison for big crimes to do it again, but they can be dangers for other reasons. Which is kind of a problem. Punishment does not deter, but it destroys a person, sometimes making them more dangerous (especially when the crime is not that big).
What we need is reconstruction. This can only be done through major structural and systemic change.
But it's possible
I'm talking about your vision of choice and change.
Your approach is idealistic. It's a romantacized version of what reality should be. And, it would be cool if it was possible, but it's not. We are part of the system, we are not functionning outside of it.
Extrem change in a short period of times ?
Again, read back the description of what it would take for a Nazi to become a radical leftist.
GRANTED... this would be one of the most extrem change possible. So I will grant you the fact that this might be one of the cases where extrem change is not possible in a short period of time while it COULD be possible for other less extrem scenarii. But we would need to make a case to case discussions.
I think a murder can change in a short period of time, but impossible for a rapist. For a racist ? Maybe it can take two week or even one if there is a big pressure.. for a incel ? Maybe it can take 1 month to deradicalize.. But again, it's a case to case..
That's not how radicality works..
You can't just transform into some radical racist just because you saw Trump spreads you fake numbers or datas about migrants.. you would need to be dived into a large number of informations for that. On top of that, you would need to gain over time a form of radical will to fight a system.
I think you could become a radical fighter over night.. but it wouldn't be really extrem, I means, there would need to be the right context for it (let's say that you might have lost a member of your family because of the bad system of health care) the sudden change of method would be the last straw but there would need to have a build up.
To because a far rightist (or a far leftist) there is a lot of informations that you need to accept first.. again.. it will take days or month depending of the flexibility of the mind and the critical defenses of the person.
You will say that I use my experience but it's important for you to understand the scale: I'm someone that can be influenced VERY EASILY. and yet, it took me aounrd 2years to fall into conspirationnism when I had negative 100 critical defenses. It took mea decade to go back to the left and critical thinking side despite living with engineers and scientific and being BOMBARDED with scientific and factual information all the way through.. and it took me around 3 years to become the radical leftist I am now while - once again - being bombarded with radical stuff and being highly open minded.
Imagine the flexibility of mind (and such flexibility would not be a good sign) taht it would require to be able to learn and integrate AND accept all those informations is a very short period of time... I mean, if you manage to find someone like that, be sure to note what they are telling you, because they might have the key to preserve humanity...
One truth will help you make one step, but you need a lot of data and the acceptance of this data to radicalize or deradicalize.
Indeed. Some people will be more flexible than other or less prompt to accept. But we are not machines, we can't reprogrammed the entire data base and our way of thinking just with one information or one one swoop.
We need to bathe in the pool of information for a long period of time. Sometimes month, sometimes years.. JUST TO ACCEPT THEM.
Radicalizing or deradicalizing someone or oneself it a hardcore process. Hey, test that: Try to make Ravager accept that Trans women as real women. See how long it will take for you to do that hehe. (it's very simple and I never was able to do it)
You fucking idiot you just denied being an empiricist and then asked for data which would change your mind
Now, I do indeed need data for the most part to understand things. I'm not contradicting myself here hehe
A big fact about us human... Is that datas are not enough to change our mind, even when we are empirists.
And that's something I sprinkled all around my argument. It's the notion of acceptation of reality
While understanding a fact can be easy, accepting it as truth or even adjusting our behavior to this truth is not. It's why researcher are often prevented from making major discoveries, we all have biases that prevent us from accepting some simple facts.
If for example I am to tell to Nameless that portugese DID colonized and enslave people, this is a real documented data. He might need time to really understanding it, but even more time to accept it. Simply because he was educated in the vision that his ancestor were pacifist with native mainly due to a capitalistic and neo colonial education. OR if I were to demonstrate fact after fact the problem with capitalism, that I would give him the comparison of the dead because of capitalism and because of communism (which I already did), he would have clear and documented data showing that capitalism is immensely more hurtfull that communism.. and yet even if he starts to understand this informations, it will be hard as hell for him to accept that, because there is his entire personnal context that would enter the equation, his educations, his beliefs, the system he is living in etc.
This is why.. while knowing that they are homosexual, some people can't just accept it. Simply because accepting it would put them either in danger or it would require for them to rethink too much about their lives..
Financial reasons are part of suffering, it's not just an inconvenience when your pregnancy will bring you toward precarity. Also, show me the data about mental health beeing included please. I'm curious.
Well, I still disagree with them
It's a rare case where I think scientist are not going as far as they should to think about life. But this is not a debate I'm willing to have here. Sorry.
Human rights apply to birthed beings.
Now, I think there is a lacking in human rights as abortion should be rendered possible by a human right BECAUSE OF ethics.
This needs to be a future addition. But this will not benefit a foetus, I'm sorry. Again, it's a question of ethic, and not moral.
+1
You should watch Squid Games. lol
If only ..
Yeah, it's weird lol
Honestly, aside from France, I do not know a political force that is really radical to the left in Europe. There are movements, but not really enough to tip the balance.
I could be wrong tho..