Kindness is Punk

Has anyone noticed that the “both sides are the same so don’t bother voting” crowd have tripled efforts since we neared another important election time frame, funny how that happens.

Especially pitching that in the face of Hungary’s recent transition.

That’s the issue when you have a Republican controlled Congress. They’ll never turn on the party so you’re asking them to hold themselves accountable.

AIPAC does have a hold on Congress and just voting won’t work. You need pressure in primaries for progressive candidates and you need to organize.

However, If voting didn’t matter then why does AIPAC spend over $100 million per cycle to primary anyone who steps out of line? Why did they bury Andy Levin? Why did they prop up Haley Stevens?

They’re not stupid. They spend that money because voting works just not always in the direction we want. The goal isn’t to give up on voting. It’s to make sure the votes that happen are for people who aren’t owned.

You can’t vote your way out of a fascist empire. But you also can’t organize your way out either if you’ve ceded every lever of power to the other side. You need both.

Blanket statements collapse important differences within the party.

They erase the hard work of progressive members like Jamie Raskin, who is pushing for warrant requirements and reforms on FISA.

They belittle votes against surveillance expansions by figures like Ron Wyden, who has consistently fought Section 702 backdoor searches.

And they ignore primaries where challengers to incumbents run to the left on civil liberties.

If you want change, name names: Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Jim Himes, the ones who actively shield the surveillance status quo. Then organize primaries or pressure campaigns against them.

The both sides same argument ironically lets those specific Democrats off the hook. Because if nothing can change, why bother trying at all?

Do both! DO BOTH!

It’s rare but I have seen it

I myself am poly but I’ve been in a relationships where the other person wasn’t comfortable with it and agreed to monogamy and have been on the giving and receiving end of infidelity. As I’ve gotten older I’ve understood the damage I’ve done and how to properly engage with those feelings and have an open and honest discussion.

I think we actually agree more than it seemed. Feelings aren’t choices. Actions are. And the social punishment for failing at monogamy is often brutal and unfair. I just think two people can still freely say 'don’t act on it and if they both mean it, breaking that hurts. That’s all.

So am I correct in saying under your framework monogamy can never be chosen freely? Or would it be at more accurate to say that if it was chosen it’ll be chosen via action and not agreement?

I empathize. Women are absolutely coerced into a role by modern society a habit we are sadly falling back into and that is horrible.

However, to say that no two people wish for a monogamous relationship and that trust ultimately doesn’t matter is a step too far for me. But I understand why someone would feel that way.

I too have seen people trapped in a loveless marriage.

If two parties agreed to it under no sense of duress then anyone who betrayed the mutual trust required is making a selfish choice.

If your feelings toward the agreement change you need to have a discussion with the other person.

You can say they’re antiquated for agreeing to it, you can even say that it’s an unrealistic expectation but if it’s consensually agreed to it’s about trust in your partner’s word

Pleasure Killer

Valid, however as AI advances I’m worried they will iron out its telltale signs. Thus poisoning the well on all online discourse.

Israeli and Russian honeypot!