Charlotte

@Greynxgga69 They haven't nature they are in state of non participation. Dogs can also learn to a certain extent

@UtilityCalc Babies participate in social life more than cats and dogs because they are human, they are humans in the process of maturing

It’s completely fine for human societies to kill and eat animals. There may be issues with the methods employed to do it, and there are also varied social circumstances which determine the gravity of this, but there’s no inherent moral problem with the practice. I’ll explain why below:

@Greynxgga69 would it be morally okay to kill a baby that nobody cared about in any way?

@Greynxgga69 babies cannot reciprocate. they themselves do not participate in social life as agents any more than your dog

@Greynxgga69 this applies to human infants animals endure physical and emotional suffering. its wrong to do suffering onto things without reason.

The histories of all particular animals (including humans) are manifestations of natural history, but the histories of non-human animals do not have logics distinguishable from their basic biological and environmental content. Human history, by contrast, cannot be explained in biophysical terms. You cannot rigorously explain the distinctions between human social forms by looking strictly at environmental contexts, our tool use, or the structure of the human body, nor can you explain the granularities of an individual humans psychology by pointing to selection pressures and instincts. This is because human history is characterized by complex forms of social practice that enable the continuous and cross-generational development of social consciousness, which then stamps the resultant social practices with normative content. Of course, that isn’t to say that the norms and standards baked into social practices are consolidated in a harmonious or uncontested form; all preceding history - the history of class societies - has been defined by struggles, which have resulted in more or less spontaneous reconfigurations of the moral consciousness of society, but this process never terminates in social amorality or the absolute submission of the dominated classes to the morality of the ruling class. Rather, a one-sided stability prevails, where the ruling classes and state authorities actively fight efforts to renegotiate the moral obligations of their subjects with whatever means they have at their disposal, and in times of revolution the intellectual and moral traditions of the old society perish alongside the forms of production and class dynamics that underpinned them. So, human social life is stamped with its own normative content grounded in social practice, and the form this assumes is dictated by the forms of social unity/antagonism that prevail in a given conjuncture. The condition for being *inside* of this process as an agent, is being able to both think and act in ways that directly reflect/are reflected into the nexus of social traditions and struggles which define human societies at any given point in time. Even the most intellectually stunted human being is a part of society as a subject, because they are nothing but a modality of the general socio-historical context that birthed them. Animals, however, cannot participate in human society that way, because they are lack the reflexive practice/consciousness that is essential to understanding what humanity does as a species. Being is doing, and what we do is not what they do. Animals, consequently, cannot be considered social subjects, which also excludes them from any independent qualification as moral subjects, since moral teems are specific categories for social regulation. And so, animals only demand moral consideration inasmuch as we collectively act as their custodians, and in the process condition the animals under consideration to occupy various social roles, roles which often come with different degrees of implied anthropomorphism that amplify or reduce the moral gravity of harming them in one form or another. We have obligations to animals the same way we have obligations to protect the graves and bodies of the dead; neither are human beings, but they are both morally significant because of their specific connections to human social being, and this is ultimately what makes our obligations concerning them important as well. A person killing a house-pet would be wrong because it is a violation of the social bonds and obligations that have been cultivated between humanity and the animals we have domesticated, but hunting and the slaughter of livestock is permissible because neither of these *must* by necessity reflect or create damage to the integrity of any given social body. This is ultimately why I find most common cases for veganism unconvincing. If you think Im wrong please explain

heh

@Aspen1921 What is power

electoralism will never build working class power, it can only leverage state power. We can leverage state power away from crushing (or even empowering) worker's assemblies and similar things but electoralism or "taking power" can never lead anywhere itself.

@Medicare4All4 sure, individual belief might not be "bad" per say, but its definitely wrong

@UtilityCalc Omg secular trauma is wild. “I can’t impose my beliefs onto everyone. Look how oppressed I am!” Hot take tho, religion isn’t inherently bad, just organized religion is inherently evil

I hate that religious tolerance is necessary for political wins today One day we will bring back socialist atheism

The superdole changed, for the better, the lives of so many people I know. People had the freedom to quit dead end jobs and begin real careers and passions. The freedom to move somewhere new or to remain in place. Also the freedom to get out into the streets when it mattered

@obus_r @antifa_17 yea I'm not interested.

@UtilityCalc @antifa_17 Correct lol

The intense “progressive” backslide on defunding the police has to be studied because wtf is happening? Do people even remember 2020 or those years in general? You got people who are calling themselves “progressive leftists” sneering at Police abolition now, bizarre

@obus_r @antifa_17 x.com/UtilityCalc/st…

@obus_r @antifa_17 I exist in the here and now. People were calling for abolition here and now. I will in the here and now oppose their bad policy prescriptions for the here and now.

@obus_r @antifa_17 again there was already a context for the initial tweets that you're just ignoring in favor of the conversation you personally want to have

@obus_r @antifa_17 police abolition as a position is not itself communism. im not sneering at communism im sneering at police abolition because i sneer at all policies i dislike

@obus_r @antifa_17 you literally said what i did was "fucked up"

@obus_r @antifa_17 this conversation started literally by you pushing back against me sneering at abolitionists

@obus_r @antifa_17 there was no unified program to rally behind and agitate people on which made it a doomed political project that we have to wait to bring back now

@obus_r @antifa_17 we can see this in polling, reporting and national narratives