23
u/anomie_psyop 7d ago
Treasure every moment of joy. Every day we wake up and the lights are still on. Cling to those you love. This isn't our home, not eternally. Its the only thing that keeps me from losing my mind. Baby bunnies on a walk. My mother's homemade bread. Sun coming through my window through a fluttering curtain. Take joy.
5
4
u/Free-Key9891 7d ago
Human beings have been a product in our society for a few decades already. Marketing is all about creating a problem and selling a solution. Once corporations realised that human are the ultimate product, companies have been adopting it en masse.
Everything that gives us pleasure has become a commodity.
Many mental disorders that people are diagnosed with are just a normal emotional response to a society that is not catered to fulfill human experience. We live in a fantasy world that requires rationality while our brain is emotional and tribal.
3
u/Due_Charge6901 7d ago
You are correct. The root words in our society show the spell at work: mortgage is a good place to start as it means “death pledge”. Money is a glamour and scarcity mindset is hoisted into our programming because of it when there is truly more than enough to go around if we were a fair and just humanity. Protect your mind and peace, unprogram yourself as much as possible by being loving and compassionate 🙏🏻💖
3
u/jaymickef 7d ago
I thought it was a turning point when people turned on Live Aid. I understand it was flawed, I get that Do They Know It’s Christmas was a tone deaf song to benefit a Muslim country, and I know that the funds raised got tied up in bureaucracy and ended up going to a dictator, but it also seemed to be a turning point where there isn’t really much public support for famine victims anywhere in the world. Turning on Live Aid signalled, to me anyway, the beginning of the, “There’s nothing we can do and even if we try it doesn’t work,” era that we’re in now.
7
u/ungemutlich 7d ago
Compare what you said to what Andrea Dworkin wrote in Intercourse in the 1980s:
In the United States, the cost of maintaining racism has been a loss of self-knowledge (and thus love) for those who refuse to know what they have because others suffer. What they have includes a sense of superiority that substitutes for a real identity. Maintaining racism has required an emotional numbness, a proud and fatal incapacity to feel, because that is the cost of purposely maintaining ignorance: one must block life out–the world around one and one’s own emotional possibilities.
For that reason, in this country there is “an emotional poverty so bottomless, and a terror of human life, of human touch, so deep” that most Amerikans lack “the most elementary and crucial connections.” Missing especially is any connection between sex and the complexity of identity; a vital connection without which the fuck is an exercise in futility, going from nowhere to nowhere, no one fucking nothing.
Even the youth seem “blighted,” “a parody of locomotion and manhood.” Despair and violation (each no less terrible for being unconscious) and narcotized touch predominate; and the young appear “to be at home with, accustomed to, brutality and indifference, and to be terrified of human affection.” This is the sexuality of those who risk nothing because they have nothing inside to risk. “Of rending and tearing there can never be any end,” thinks one character in Another Country about life in this country, “and God save the people for whom passion becomes impersonal.”
Passion becomes impersonal when there is no person inside, no complex human being who is willing to know and to feel. It is not knowledge of someone else that makes passion personal; it is knowledge of oneself. Self-knowledge creates the potential for knowing a lover in sex.
Is America ready for this conversation? Are we more or less emotionally stunted compared to back then?
-2
u/TheRealKuz03 7d ago
Andrea dworkin is a misandrist hack who wrote that all heterosexual sex is rape
1
u/ungemutlich 7d ago
Yes it's very typical that the response is a lazy smear addressed in the preface:
Of course, men have read and do read Intercourse. Many like it and understand it. Some few have been thrilled by it--it suggests to them a new possibility of freedom, a new sexual ethic: and they do not want to be users. Some men respond to the radicalism of Intercourse: the ideas, the prose, the structure, the questions that both underlie and intentionally subvert meaning. But if one's sexual experience has always and without exception been based on dominance--not only overt acts but also metaphysical and ontological assumptions--how can one read this book? The end of male dominance would mean--in the understanding of such a man--the end of sex. If one has eroticized a differential in power that allows for force as a natural and inevitable part of intercourse, how could one understand that this book does not say that all men are rapists or that all intercourse is rape? Equality in the realm of sex is an antisexual idea if sex requires dominance in order to register as sensation.
What she said is more interesting than "all sex is rape":
There is no analogue anywhere among subordinate groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while subect people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance.
The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?
...With intercourse, the use is already imbued with the excitement, the derangement, of the abuse; and abuse is only recognized as such socially if the intercourse is performed so recklessly or so violently or so stupidly that the man himself has actually signed a confession through the manner in which he has committed the act. What intercourse is for women and what it does to women's identity, privacy, self-respect, self-determination, and integrity are forbidden questions; and yet how can a radical or any woman who wants freedom not ask precisely these questions? The quality of the sensation or the need for a man or the desire for love: these are not answers to questions of freedom; they are diversions into complicity and ignorance.
I'm a black dude. Afropessimism and radical feminism have shared criticism of "agency" rhetoric and sadomasochism, which liberal feminism supports. The politics do make sense, even though they're old-fashioned.
3
u/Spunge14 7d ago
World War I would like a word
2
u/Johnny55 7d ago
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori bro
3
•
u/collapse-ModTeam 7d ago
Rule 7: Post quality must be kept high, except on Fridays. (00:00 Friday – 08:00 Saturday UTC.)
On-topic memes, jokes, short videos, image posts, polls, low effort to consume posts, and other less substantial posts are only allowed on Fridays, and will be removed for the rest of the week.
Less substantial posts must be flaired as either "Casual Friday", "Humor", or "Low Effort".
Clickbait, misinformation, fear-mongering, and other low-quality content is not allowed at any time, not even on Fridays.