I think it can be argued that once a seemingly decent, mentally healthy person murders rather than a pervert cannibal or social outcast then the justification for the murder should be reasonable.
It makes me livid when people write that vigilantism is never right. It speaks volumes about how little nuance there is in their own lives. I think these same people would denounce civil disobedience in the time of the civil rights movement and would joke about Seneca Falls if they were born a century younger. The overconfidence disgusts me.
I imagine that their point is not that they are the same, but that the attitudes correlate. The absolutist view about vigilantism, where they see no possible place for violence in any situation, could translate to the idea that one should protest quietly, preferably indoors and change will come soon enough™. Which seems to be the case [0]. He groups up completely different social movements ranging from the highly organized, reactions to an active conflict, to decentralized mobs, naming them "neotoddlerism". Saying that:
> The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was guided by leaders who had clear, specific, and realistic goals, and were able to negotiate to achieve them.
Implying that Just Stop Oil doesn't fulfill these characteristics sans the prominent leaders. Their original objective seems to have happened [1] (JSO influence is debatable of course) and have defined new clear goals [2]. Lumping this with Israel-Palestine outrage on Twitter and the UK riots seems to make the criteria for not being effective social movements a.k.a "neotoddlerism" is "I don't like it / They annoy me".
Would this attitude result in "denouncing / joking about Seneca Falls" with era appropriate socialization? Doesn't seem that far farfetched.
I think we are conflating two different things. Monogamous people and monogamous institutions. Does the author mean institutions are coercive or that couples are coercive?
Systemic, indoctrinated and even toxic monogamy, perpetuated by people and society at large.
You've got people and relationships that are so harmed by strict heteronormativity and its related monogamy that "men and women can't be friends" and "you can't say that lady's cute because that's cheating" and pornography is adultery.
It's little microaggressions and requirements of conformity that systematize and enforce monogamy in little ways.
It doesn’t matter what system, society will ruin anything it enforces. Everything has pros and cons.
Imagine the same system enforcing poly. You’d have mandatory partner sharing to those in power, all sorts of requirements and gate keeping for who could and could not share, or be part of various cliques, etc.
For sure, anyone pretty or desirable would be expected to be poly and like it or else, etc.
The reality is that system would fly apart even faster than monogamous systems since there is no meaningful way to ‘opt out’ and protect oneself, which is why you don’t see it in any large scale societies.
I think the process of learning is in fact making larger pictures into smaller quotes and this does not help learning in the way that it’s trying to. The process of diluting context is something that fundamentally must happen inside a person and trying to replace that with Ai is contrary to the point.
I do find significant use for this in something like review and considering the legibility of my own note taking, that is one handsome solution.
