Emerald

Willingness is a statement of personal choice... not legal obligation.

Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold water... given the fact that strict abortion laws tends to put mother's at greater risk of dying, being traumatized, or losing the ability to have children because of pregnancy complications. And there's nothing pro-life about that. When abortion laws are strict and only make exceptions if the life of the mother is at risk, doctors are put in the un-enviable position of having to determine whether or not the mother's life is actually at risk under threat of losing their license or going to jail. So, it's common for doctors to wait until the mother is on death's doorstep to perform a life-saving abortion. And it's not so uncommon for women in places with strict abortion laws to lose their ability to have children, to die, or to experience really traumatic situations regarding the birth (like having to carry a child to term who has been diagnosed during gestation as not being viable outside of the womb).

I don't know very much about the political situation in Russia. But my guess would be that most of the Russian population probably already doesn't support Putin enthusiastically... but people have grown accustomed to the authoritarianism and might not feel like they can protest because of anti-protesting laws and the threat of state violence. And the authoritarianism might have arisen post Soviet Union as a true frog in boiling water situation where things remained fairly stable over the course of the slower onset of authoritarianism. (Luckily the same is not true for the Trump regime) And often times, if there is relative stability and homeostasis, the authoritarian regime is tolerated as the status quo... like Mussolini making the trains run on time. (Also... luckily the same is not true for the Trump regime) There could also be a more unilateral degree of media control where the state can more easily seize and doctor the narrative fed to the masses to paint themselves as the good guys and protesters as the bad guys. These are just guesses though, as I do not know much about Putin's Russia or how much people do or do not protest against him.

Be the recipients of the state-sanctioned violence and authoritarianism... like Civil Right activists were... and like Nelson Mandela was... and like Ghandi was. It is rare that someone who participates in peaceful protest would be the recipient of violence, so it's relatively low risk. But in the cases, when a peaceful protester is the recipient of violence... those are the situations that wake average people up the very most and starve the regime of support from the populace. Consider the impact of people who have been wrongly imprisoned... like Kilmar Abrego Garcia. His story alone is a wake-up call to many people as it shows the monstrousness and authoritarianism of the state.

Again, that negates the point of the peaceful protest if said violence does occur. Now, most peaceful protests don't have state-sanctioned violence happening at them. And in this case, the point of the peaceful protest is to show strength in numbers... and to give social proof about the popularity of the movement. But in the less common cases, where state or extremists groups enact violence on peaceful unarmed protestors... that is the very thing that wakes average people up. Peaceful protest that meets state sanctioned violence, should be a show of a violent police state thugs stepping on the innocent and unarmed with jackboots. That must be the optics in order for peaceful protests to work... in the rarer instances where state-sanctioned violence does occur. For example, in the Civil Rights Movement, it was police hosing down peaceful protesters with powerful fire-hoses... and people peacefully sitting in the pool while the owner of the hotel poured beach in. It is these images that wake people up and sway people towards supporting your cause. So, while it's unlikely for people at a protest to be the recipient of actual violence... it is the power imbalance of being an innocent unarmed target of violence that opens the hearts and minds of the populace. If you fight back against violence at these protests, it will read as a more "Both sides are equal and violent. That's why I'm a moderate and stay out of politics" type-thing... and it will turn off the normie politically disengaged people who are meant to be persuaded. They'll just be like "See, both sides equally violent."

@Hardkill @integral From a strategic standpoint, it's a very foolish idea to bring weapons to a non-violent protest, as it is counterproductive to the desired result of the protest. The point of a protest is to make yourself visible in a positive way so that relatively disengaged normies want to join your cause.... and you can do this most effectively through non-violent protest. AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY... if law enforcement or other combative groups enact violence onto peaceful protesters, the public will have sympathy towards the non-violent protestors and wake up the injustices from the power that be. And in these cases where the state cracks down, it can really turn the people against the powers that be and towards the cause of the peaceful protestors. If the protests are violent (or even if they are just perceived as violent), then the protest will do the opposite of its intended result. And the protests will get much more easily smeared by the media as riots full of violent criminals... and it will drive people away from your cause.

100% That's my exact argument that I was having with Leo the other day. And it applies both economically and socially... as any concession to the opponent's framing will strengthen the opponent and weaken yourself. Any time you go "Okay, I can see how economic Populism is a bit extreme." or "Okay, I see how the acceptance of trans people is something that most people find weird."... you've already done the opponent's job for you. And the opponent's job is to make their side look as normal and reasonable as possible and to frame the opposite side's perspective and goofy, out of touch, and weird. I swear... people who are slightly left of center don't understand power one single bit. And so many of them will do the opposition's dirty work and propagandizing for them on principle and out of a "let's be philosophically committed to truth and meet in the middle... and be deliberately looking for the most fringe expressions of the left so that we can show how honest and normal we are." But it's like dividing your own side and throwing the game to the opposition on purpose just to score an empty philosophical victory, while people continue to suffer and the forces of corruption proliferate.

Yes. It's said that thousands of years ago, someone in one of the Amazon tribes was sitting with Hapé and got a vision and instructions about how to create Ayahuasca. Of course, there are many tribes around the Amazon who all relate to Ayahuasca in different ways. So, I don't know if the story is different in different tribes as to how Ayahuasca was discovered. But it seems that the prevailing understanding is that the use of Hapé predates and led to the invention of Ayahuasca.

In the Amazon... Hapé is called the grandfather while Ayahuasca is called the grandmother, as they go together. And if you attend an Ayahuasca ceremony, Hapé is often used to prepare one's self for the Ayahuasca journey... or even to ground if the journey starts getting too heavy Hapé calms the nervous system and grounds you deeply in the physical world... and helps you purge stagnant energy from the body and bring unprocessed emotions to the surface. And perhaps most importantly, it temporarily weakens the power and stickiness of your thoughts... and it becomes a lot easier to meditate and just be present with what is. And it allows you to be a lot more open and receptive. But despite its grounding feature, there is also occasionally an energy about it that reminds me of how an eagle feels in flight. And it can have some effects that are similar in some ways to entheogens, despite it not itself being a hallucinogen. And the use of Hapé pre-dates the use of Ayahuasca. And the recipe for Ayahuasca (which is the mixture of the Ayahuasca (Caapi) vine and Chacruna leaves) is said to have come as a vision someone in one of the Amazon tribes had while under the influence of Hapé.

Same here.... I don't smoke it either. I work with Hapé.

I'm not so sure that that assumption is true, given the fact that belonging within a community is the foundational need of the human being (as it is the need that all other biological and psychological needs have always been met through). And socialization within community contexts relates far more to psychological matters than to directly biological matters. My experience has been that psychology trumps biology in most cases and that we end up far more influenced by our software than by our hardware, as a result of having a very complex pre-frontal cortex to adapt within social dynamics. Let's take Anorexia, as an example of an instance where psychology trumps biology. Biologically the body is wired up to need and eat food. But a psychological condition, like Anorexia can override that biological process. There are similar instances where psychology trumps biology relative to attraction and sexuality, where a person will be drawn to another person because they sense a repeat of familial dynamics. Or if we take the need for sex more generally, most people are seeking it out for more than just reproduction... with drivers towards belonging, connection, love, status, validation, etc.

I work with Mapacho myself. Using it here and there with a ceremonial medicine approach, has helped me settle my nervous system, ground, and purge a lot of stagnant energy in my body. Of course, Mapacho also has Nicotine. In fact, it has 9 times more Nicotine than the Tobacco that's in cigarettes. So, it can be addictive if used habitually. But I have found that using it sparingly has been incredibly helpful to me.

I feel the same way about drugs and euthanasia as I do about abortion... for the same reasons pertaining to bodily sovereignty. I don't believe the government should have jurisdiction over what people do with their own body as long as it doesn't encroach upon the sovereignty and boundaries of others. But when it comes to public nudity, that's beyond the jurisdiction of personal bodily sovereignty... and is more about a public space where there are certain collective rules and procedures that make existing in that space. And the government can and should have jurisdiction over the rules of access to public spaces... as can the private owners of a space that's open to the public. And you can be naked all you want, as long as you are in your own private space. And committing crimes is also a matter that the government should have jurisdiction over... because it impacts the public in some way and is beyond the realm of bodily sovereignty. People should be the sole goverenors of their own bodies and matters that pertain to their own body. But the government should have jurisdiction over the laws of public engagement within a society.

Couldn't help yourself, eh?

100%

That's fair. I just didn't agree with Leo's assertion that freedom and equality are ALWAYS a trade off. From my perspective, I'm always advocating for equality because my top values are freedom and sovereignty. I don't want my sovereignty to be squelched by top-down authoritarian forces... and I don't want others' sovereignty to be squelched by top-down authoritarian forces. But the conversation with Leo, made me realize that, from the perspective of power... there is an inverse relationship between freedom and equality. And someone belongs to only dominant groups, they may take for granted that this trade-off between freedom and equality is the same for everyone. For example, if you are a dictator... then allowing your constituents equality under the law to you would be a trade off of your own freedom. But if you are the constituent of the dictatorship, freedom and equality might as well be the same thing. Or if you're a slave owner... then your slaves gaining equality under the law is a concession of your own freedom. But if you're the slave, freedom and equality might as well be the same thing. And I think this is why, from Leo's perspective equality and freedom seem like a trade-off... because he is male and belongs only to "powerful side of the stick" groups. So, he doesn't see the inherent fight for freedom, sovereignty, and liberation that is the core foundation of leftwing social justice movements. Instead, he sees ideologues who want him to give up his freedom so that more of equality (as an idealistic abstract ideological value) can happen. But from my perspective equality and freedom might as well be the same thing... because I am female. I recognize that without equality under the law, I would have no sovereignty or rights... and that my life would be fully governed by my husband and I wouldn't even have the right to vote. He never has had to think about that or even consider a hypothetical scenario where a lack of equality would impede his freedom. So, he feels it's always a trade-off... and assumes that's true for everyone. But it only is true for white heterosexual wealthy men living in America. Nothing wrong with being that. It's just a limited perspective where you can't necessarily appreciate how interrelated equality and freedom actually are... because any equality granted to the masses will be a concession of your own freedom.

That's fine. You don't have to debate with me. You can if you choose to though.

If you were making good points, I'd also give you your kudos. I have done so before. But you went off into some weird territory about letting the world burn because of your commitment to truth... which just wasn't very well thought out. And then you compared that to the monk who died because of his commitment to truth like your willingness to allow the world to burn so that you can stay committed to truth is even remotely similar.

You sure do argue a lot for someone not trying to win arguments.

Let's keep it above the belt. I didn't call you a dumb asshole or a sycophantic jerk or anything like that. So, let's keep things on equal ground.

What kinds of freedoms need to be given up in order to have equality? Keep in mind that I am female. The only reason I have any freedom at all is because of equality. Perhaps it's a trade-off for you as a man because equality requires you to give up some power you have over others so that they too may have freedom. But from the perspective of a woman, they only ever come together. Equality means to the freedom to make my own choices and to live my life as I see fit. Without equality, I would have no freedom.

I only accuse you of things that I'm observing you doing. You do move the goal posts often. I've debated you enough times to notice that it's a pattern where you cherry pick what you consider to be the weak point of the argument and reframe and change the opposition's arguments as though the weak point of the argument is what the opposition is actually arguing. For example, my argument is that your pattern of nitpicking the left about trans issues is rhetorically weak because it concedes power to the right wing frame. And I have posed to you wiser ways of dealing with this rhetoric that doesn't fragment the movement towards a populist economic vision and doesn't concede power and credibility to the right wing trans panic stuff. The, you've tried to rope me into side arguments about the merits of socialism, the merits of random bathroom laws in Canada, the nebulous meaning of the word freedom, and several other arguments that are meant to tempt me to stop arguing my point about effective and ineffective rhetorical strategy... and instead argue with you about the merits of this that or the other random leftwing position. I've noticed that whenever you feel you can't win the argument, you'll try to shift the argument to an argument you think you can win more easily. And most people probably take the bait... so it probably works for you more often than not. But it's a bad faith argument strategy. I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you're unconscious to it... and it isn't deliberate. But you do it... and often enough to notice the pattern. But freedom and equality can only ever exist together. If you trade freedom for equality, you will not have the power to fight for equality. If you trade equality for freedom, authoritarians will take and inordinate share of the freedom and take your freedom from you.

Who need right wing propaganda when you can just get normies, liberals, and leftists to spread their own anti-left pro-right wing propaganda?

There's a difference between earned and unearned kudos.

Nazi camps are an exercise in freedom for Nazis... but a squelching of freedom for everyone else. That's why I said there must be equality under the law for there to be true freedom, where one person's freedom ends where the other person's freedom begins. Otherwise, if you don't have equality under the law, you'll get the dominant group claiming the "freedom to oppress" and the oppressed group getting stuck with little to no freedom. Hence why freedom and equality can ONLY exist together. If you lack equality, you lack freedom.