When there is nothing to lose but your chains … as the saying goes
That works both ways. Human chains are all that justifies your existence, having abandoned being a hunter gatherer.
Readit NewsDead Comment
why_is_it_good commented on You have three minutes to escape the perpetual underclass geohot.github.io//blog/je... · Posted by u/mefengl
why_is_it_good commented on The rise of industrial software chrisloy.dev/post/2025/12... · Posted by u/chrisloy
They could do a revolution. 100 rowers vs 1 captain - easy. Labor vs capital.
You mean murder, before capital understands its critics are as moraly bankrupt as capital itself, and deploys killbots?
why_is_it_good commented on The Absent Silence (2010) ursulakleguin.com/blog/3-... · Posted by u/dcminter
While acknowledging the truth of what you're saying (the first sentence, anyway), the problem is going into a cynical, defeatist "that's the way things are". A kind of learned helplessness.
So you just want a larger police force than them.
why_is_it_good commented on The Absent Silence (2010) ursulakleguin.com/blog/3-... · Posted by u/dcminter
The mistake is in expecting anything positive from a company, brand or celebrity. And then phrasing it as if it's a problem?
why_is_it_good commented on Shallow Feedback Hollows You Out nothinghuman.substack.com... · Posted by u/ivee
> writers who for a time seemed to be The Writer In the World Most In Touch With The Truth - Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Curtis Yarvin, and Jordan Peterson.
Curtis Yarvin? Excuse me?
> Excuse me?
Really thoughtful comment, that shows us the core of your objection: nothing.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/how-dawkins...
why_is_it_good commented on John Rawls, liberalism and what it means to live a good life aeon.co/essays/john-rawls... · Posted by u/rbanffy
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
_in which it is implied capitalizing B in black is both provocative, and that this kind of provocation is not interesting_
> We create small, smart cadres of people who watch power and wealth pass them by, and they advocate to overturn the system driving their envy.
"They're just jealous" forms of arguments are an ad-hominem fallacy, where characteristics of the opponent (here their supposed intent) are used to discredit their argument [0]. Not only is there no evidence that these activists aren't sincere (which doesn't mean that they are right) but even if they were driven by envy, that doesn't invalidate their criticism of those in power...
Some slopes are slippery and some people have the cause of their deeds in their [material] characteristics.
why_is_it_good commented on 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States en.wikipedia.org/wiki/202... · Posted by u/apsec112
Trans exclusionary radical feminists are socially conservative. It's eponymous; any group that has to exclude people by definition is conservative in nature. They're not traditionalists necessarily, but they are defined by a shared conservative belief. No educated TERF would argue differently, unless they're somehow convinced that femininity is a liberal concept.
You're correct that some mostly-liberal individuals hold conservative beliefs, but that's not proof of bias in the language. They're using the most accurate possible word, and if you disagree then you should take it up with Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative
> radical feminists are socially conservatives
Bold claim.
> MW: conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
LGBT advocates who want to keep LGBT institutions to advocate from, are then conservatives.
Please check your pre programming.
Context matters, doesn't it?
Black cities were born out of need, since people of color were kicked out of their homes and had to find a place that was safe for them. The came redlining. The specific case of Freedom Georgia, the article you linked, is about building a town where they feel safe, not because of the color of the skin, but because they will have the opportunity to enforce fair policing and not have to fear for their lives when stopped by a patrol.
Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them. Quite a different context, right?
Yes, different context. But for the same idea to exist in both Adam and Freedom Georgia's peoples: self segregation.
Freedom Georgia wants a black owned town. They do it because they think of it as proxy for "safe for black people". And they think that because they see skin color as the clue to spot friend or foe.
A different context, to use the same tools (race based prejudice). Both Freedom Georgia and Adams are racists. Either being a racist is not the accusation society frames it to be, or both of them should be shunned. Neither outcome looks good...
> Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them.
How many people would the poll need for you to find it harder to condemn Adams?