• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 28 days ago
cake
Cake day: December 9th, 2024

help-circle


  • My high school and early college was during the W. Bush years. I hated him, and around that time is when I got political, active, and told my (Republican) parents that I was a proud Libertarian! (Look, I’ve learned a lot over the years, and Libertarians used to pretend to be a little more progressive.)

    My parents hated that, and constantly gave me the “you may not like him but he’s your president too and you have to respect the office!” The first time he complained about Obama (hours after the election), I broke that one out and turned it around. And they realized their hypocrisy immediately becoming gay communists decided that the rule was stupid, actually, and that it turns out you don’t have to respect the office when you dont want to!

    What bothers me so much more than their stated political views is the realization that they never actually had reasoned, considered views to begin with. They emotionally select things that seem directly beneficial to themselves. And then lie about their beliefs because they know they’re selfish and indefensible.

    They’re still republicans but I’m an anarchist who no longer respects any presidents! Funny where a difference in fundamental values will lead you.




  • codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldMeat bags
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    For as much as people talk it up, I thought there was a lot to it. There isn’t.

    A dialectic is a tool for thinking through a problem or idea. You start with an idea or concept (called the Thesis) and then you consider the forces and concepts that lie in opposition to the chosen one (called the Antithesis). After considering both, you try to understand the relationships between the two things and how they support, oppose, and generate each other. This unified understanding of how the two concepts are actually one concept through these connections is called the Synthesis.

    Dialectical Materialism is applying the dialectic as a tool while also keeping in mind physical/material reality and the ways in which physical/material constraints influence these things.

    For example you might ask “Why do rebellions occur in formally peaceful states?” Your thesis is “rebellion” and so your antithesis is something like “the state” or “status quo.” Through materialism, you’d ask questions like “where do the rebels/state acquire food, shelter, weapons, etc. What is the role of poverty in fomenting rebellion?”

    Through synthesis, you would come to conclusions like “the people pay taxes to fund the state, but some people also devote a larger share of their time and resources to the rebellion.” Or: “Rebel recruitment goes up after police crackdowns, a lighter hand with policing may reduce re-occurrences of riots.”

    Because this isn’t ideal dialectics (not “ideal” like optimal but “ideal” as in “concerning ideas and immaterial things.”) So we’d be less concerned with “what is the rebellions stated aim” or “what is the state’s majority religion?” you can make these questions material though: “what do the rebels hope to gain materially” or “how is the state religion funded and enforced?”

    And although I’m just riffing an example, in real life when using this tool to convince others of your sound logic, it is best to have actual references and data to support the conclusions derived. This gives reality to the material considerations.






  • In all seriousness, visit your local library and ask them about it. Most library systems work with local authors to promote their work and regularly hold meetups and workshops for writers. Many cities have local zines, publishers, and anthologies. By getting to know your local writing scene, you can find opportunities to do readings of your work, have works published in collections, and so on.





  • This is true of health care too and was a major driving factor behind the ACA. If you (if everyone) goes in for a yearly or twice yearly checkup and health screening, then dangerous conditions like cancer, disease, injury, and so on get caught sooner. The sooner you catch a problem, the easier and cheaper it is to fix.

    If you dont get regular screenings, then people find out they have cancer too late, usually after an emergency (an ER visit), when cost of care is very expensive. The ACA made the case that getting everyone more preventative care would reduce overall health costs.

    Another factor is that hospitals do help the uninsured, then pass those costs along to the insured. There are so many hidden costs in our system due to cruelty and inefficiency that would go away if we had universal health care. But the key difference is that the current system funnels all the benefits/value (all the money) into the hands of a small number of people, while actually universal healthcare spreads the benefits out over all of society.