“Jeder ist seines Glückes Schmied” als kontrafaktischer Grundkonsens und Kernprinzip der Gesellschaftsordnung

Plus

Eine Gesellschaftsordnung die zu Prekarisierung führt

Plus

wenn du als Mann nicht stark bist, bist du nichts wert

= bestes Rezept für Feindseligkeit, Schuldigensuche, Stärkegefühl durch Gewalt und Ausgrenzung

Maybe it’s the racing what makes people become rats

The paradigm of the market hasn’t been shifted away from, sadly

Aahahaa “Tafel … Schoko-Style”

You can’t say it’d be against the constituion. That is debatable (and debated, see e.g. Wolfgang Abendroth).

The interpretation of the constitution is subject to powerdynamics as well. And it’s the only smart way to design a constitution if it’s meant to be the everstanding stable foundation of a society. … cause you know, those tend to change

I see. Thanks

Isnt thatvway to much volume for text? I would imagine every book ever written to be judt a few tb. But I also don’t know much about the issue

Awesome comment. Thank you! This is where something starts to become visible: the weird indirect physical and psychological violence of liberal ideology.

It’s base claim is: If everyone, as a single enlighted decent individual agent, would just play by the rules (fair markets), everything would be at it’s best. All of them shall thrive.

Now all those good christians go through life working their ass of, actually trying to be “a good person”, but after decades they have to painfully find out: It doesn’t work out. Most of them get more stressed, poorer, there’s ecological destruction, war and so on. Almost no one get’s to thrive.

As you pointed out, finding out about capitalism and (neccessarilly collectively) paving a way to more rational production and fairer distribution, is difficult. You could almost say it’s practically and ideologically out of reach. You know, because your freedoms depend on liberal individualism.

They end up with two options: 1. Look for an outside menace to the otherwise funtional market game (immigrants, jews, or heck why not trans people) 2. Get more of the same: more privatizarion, less social welfare etc.

They cling ever harder to a political decision, the more it harms them. This is brutal and sad af imo.

Real agency is possible, just not the individualist kind liberalism is successfully promising them in their despair of heteronomy.

Cringe is life.

You’re welcome. Well kudos to them anyways I guess. Some hinterlands outeight ban gender equality language so I’ll them in as progressive :3

You can just replace / with *, in pronouns as well: Seine * ihre, Kolleg * innen, jede * r.

[Edit: without spaces inbetween, but otherwise things become italic in here]

This way you are the surest, since everybody is included every time.

I really have no clue where your teacher got this mixing thing from. But all this is work in progress. Societies and languages have to transform and that doesn’t need to be a linear process. Imo it’s even better if it isn’t, because exploration and multiperspectivity aren’t very linear by nature and irritation and changes make for good opportunities to think and discuss.

For example sometimes I like saying just one gender, if it makes for good, well placed irritation.

*Die Stadt sollte designierte Fahrradstraßen haben, damit Fahrradfahren auch ohne Helm hinreichend sicher ist.

I don’t know where you got this from or if you just invented it, but I have never heard/seen anyone mix * and /.

People interested in gender neutral language used / before the idea of more than two genders came up. Whoever wanted to specifically include non-binary people started using _ or *.

Also it makes little sense imo to include nb’s in the subject of a sentence to go back to binary scheme in the pronouns…

Thanks y’all

Sounds amazing. What is the aproximate cost for all the parts needed?

I feel everything you say. We need radical critique, grab things by their roots, stop dancing around.

But thinking, and I guess platon (as a pro philosopher) didn’t cover that, is mostly dialectical with doing, with everyday social practice. IRL they don’t seperate as the cognitivist and voluntaristic understanding of enligthment implies.

I think it’s still good to go vote to keep the worst from happening and to improve the circumstances for emancipatory struggle.

But I also think voting is one of the lesser important levers, compared to activism, organizing, unions and so on.

Both, giving up using levers and cosplaying trying by just voting for a shitty neoliberal mess and watch them making people frustrated enough to vote for trumpf and not doing anything else are irresponsible at the end of the day

Makes me 'member these informative graphics on 4chan ~2008 that categorized users into oldfags, newfags and cancer. Anyone else 'member?

I wonder what those people claim they keep politics and science seperated. You know, because if you get a lab coat you’re immune

“Strawman” - and then you just go with “vegans”… so all? Most? Some? Or maybe just the tiniest percentage? I think you understand for wich ones my argument applies and how “strawman” doesn’t, cause numbers. You know, if you pay attention…

Ok lets cut the rhetorics, I was trying to be sincere. I think you might wanna pay some more of that attention (omg sry I stop now) to “dialectic”. This does explicitly not mean you can turn the thing around and solely look at the other side.

So of course no change ever happens if all those one persons don’t do anything. But they will only change history if they change the underlying structures. To do so, they have to overcome their individualistic constriction and reach collective agency.

You gotta organize. The market won’t do, since it is THE form of organization that makes everyone a single player. Both, in their acting and in their consciousness.

This statement (about everyone single personal effort) only becomes meaningful when you take into consideration why people don’t. If you do, you will encounter the dialectics of structure and “personal choice” and how complicated history is and how it is not at all about “everybody make a small change in their life”.

The liberal feverdream of individual solutions for structural problems is bound to end up in “I buy good groceries”.

And, eventhough veganism is a good thing to do, this is why I’m personally so annoyed by vegan communities.

I dont know if reducing your personal sin count or whatever is a substitute for radical critique and political action, or an add-on, so I didn’t downvote. But maybe it explains some of it.