Isn’t not calling “evil” something you genuinely perceive as evil just helping it normalize & incorporate it into society (and you are not doing your individual duty)?
Like, that’s how democratic (even anarchic) stuff works in order to move onwards together - ppl/everyone has to voice their opinion & ppl/everyone has to listen?
Not voicing (or not being able to voice) your opinions is bad.
Being attacked for that opinion is also bad.
Being marginalised for your opinion if it clashes with a significantly bigger group (and it’s on an important subject to begin with) is just how living in & working with a society works (“deviants” in it’s neural sense).
If the above was true, you wouldn’t have eg that kind of wealth concentration that can lead to an extreme minority influencing what the majority has to do.
Also - a conflict isn’t an attack, it’s how you through debate move onwards (sides taking about conflicting views until all is thought out & out in the open so everyone can hold an informed view/vote/opinion/behaviour). Not voicing your opinions to avoid “conflict” is just not moving forward.
Ppl telling you to avoid conflict just want to silence your influence.
I‘m sure our opinions don’t differ too much, I’m totally with you on many things.
What I’m trying to get at is that we end up with 2 groups of people who call each other evil. Because that’s what using these labels boils things down to. And whoever is stronger will come out on top and claim they righteously defeated the evil others.
There no discourse to be had, there’s no nuance. Only hate. Which as we can see is also very easy to weaponize.
Well then say the words. These people are raping and killing children and selling them to each other. I best see you say those words every time you mention them. If evil is too abstract then repeat their crimes every time you speak of them.
Isn’t not calling “evil” something you genuinely perceive as evil just helping it normalize & incorporate it into society (and you are not doing your individual duty)?
Like, that’s how democratic (even anarchic) stuff works in order to move onwards together - ppl/everyone has to voice their opinion & ppl/everyone has to listen?
Not voicing (or not being able to voice) your opinions is bad.
Being attacked for that opinion is also bad.
Being marginalised for your opinion if it clashes with a significantly bigger group (and it’s on an important subject to begin with) is just how living in & working with a society works (“deviants” in it’s neural sense).
If the above was true, you wouldn’t have eg that kind of wealth concentration that can lead to an extreme minority influencing what the majority has to do.
Also - a conflict isn’t an attack, it’s how you through debate move onwards (sides taking about conflicting views until all is thought out & out in the open so everyone can hold an informed view/vote/opinion/behaviour). Not voicing your opinions to avoid “conflict” is just not moving forward.
Ppl telling you to avoid conflict just want to silence your influence.
I‘m sure our opinions don’t differ too much, I’m totally with you on many things.
What I’m trying to get at is that we end up with 2 groups of people who call each other evil. Because that’s what using these labels boils things down to. And whoever is stronger will come out on top and claim they righteously defeated the evil others. There no discourse to be had, there’s no nuance. Only hate. Which as we can see is also very easy to weaponize.
Well then say the words. These people are raping and killing children and selling them to each other. I best see you say those words every time you mention them. If evil is too abstract then repeat their crimes every time you speak of them.
Absolutely. I find that much more productive than the catchall evil.