I don’t usually use ‘evil’ to describe things but I don’t know any other word to describe settler states and their tendency to massacre and torment people they stole their land from and gleefully brag about all the horrific atrocities they’ve committed/want to commit. Never before have I seen a group people that take more joy in the suffering of others than the kinds of people that want to wipe out entire societies and claim their land for their own.

This is the kinda shit where if you write villains that act exactly like this people will slam you for bad or unrealistic writing, but no, it would actually be perfectly in line with reality all things considered.

EDIT: ps I know me not good at writing things. Wish I can write my thoughts on this better, but I can’t really get it into right now

  • Nevoic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well said. I think principles are really well-formed when they apply to a ton of different topics, even outside of the original scope of what the person writing intended. You listed a good number of cases where these kinds of material conflicts manifest, but there was one big one left out that a lot of leftists omit, veganism.

    Even leftists, who are this aware about the cognitive dissonance humans fall victim to rationalize harm, still fall into these patterns. “What I choose to eat is my right”, “it’s natural that we kill and eat animals”, “nature is cruel”, “(non-pet) animals don’t deserve moral consideration because they’re lesser”.

    It’s interesting because a lot of times these leftists aren’t landlords, they aren’t bourgeois business owners, they aren’t benefactors of the patriarchy or imperialism. So their lack of material interests in perpetuating these systems allows them to critically analyze it. Then when it comes to a system of oppression they do benefit from, their critical analysis ends at “mmm bacon is so fucking tasty”.

    • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      And they get angry and insulted - “How dare you compare me to an animal!” - because carnists cannot imagine viewing animals as anything other than disposable inferiors.

      • xj9 [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        totally off topic for the threat, but i’m pro animal liberation and on board with a lot of vegan arguments. i don’t really see why i should be held to a different moral standard wrt meat eating than a cat or wolf tho. there are cases where cats eating meat is criminal, but not always. in some cases you need the hunt to balance the birth rates of prey animals. i also don’t think nature is entirely cruel when it comes to predator-prey relationships. i would much rather be put out of my misery than live in a decaying shell.

        • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          i don’t really see why i should be held to a different moral standard wrt meat eating than a cat or wolf tho.

          Male lions kill cubs so they can impregnate their mothers, but this is - to put it lightly - frowned upon in human society. If you put humans on the same moral standard as other animals, you quickly end up in absurd and horrifying places.

            • Nevoic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              He was answering your question, which was “why should I be treated differently than non-human animals with regards to morality”.

              He gave a concrete example, but I’ll speak to the general principle. Non-human animals aren’t civilized moral agents, they lack the capacity to rationally consider the harm they’re causing, and by extension they have no moral obligations. “Ought implies can”. Without the ability to act morally, they can’t be obligated to be moral.

              Humans are different. We have the capacity to act rationally and morally. Since we have the ability to consider the harm we’re causing and stopping, we are obligated to. That’s why you’re different than non-human animals.

        • pillow [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          in some cases you need the hunt to balance the birth rates of prey animals

          I think it’s probably more difficult than you realize to make a moral case for intervening to keep predator/prey populations in balance

          • imbalance is generally humans’ fault in the first place; swooping in again to fill up your chest freezer with meat is just double dipping
          • ecosystem preservation or whatever is all tied up with romantic ideals and rarely puts animal suffering ahead of human aesthetic sensibilities, on even a utilitarian basis let alone a moral one. are you actually helping animals or are you just participating in perpetuating the cycle of carnage?
          • xj9 [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you should look into the relationship between deer and wolves in the inter-mountain west in north america. in particular the case studies of the removal and later re-introduction of wolves to yellowstone. there’s some interesting work being done tracking degenerative conditions among deer populations that may be tied to the removal of predator animals from the region. hunting is popular in the region, so its not like humans are doing the job properly either.

            its interesting to think about and it upsets dogmatic vegans so win-win. this view leads me towards eating mostly vegetarian, so its not like i’m diametrically opposed to veganism or super into meat eating. it just doesn’t seem coherent to me to draw this special distinction between humans and animals. a solid philosophical system in my opinion should be able to address all inter-species relationships in some way, otherwise it cannot grapple with concepts like homeostasis effectively.