I think the current interpretation of sectarianism privlages debates about dumb shit over debates over theory and actual politics. Anything significant enough to define a tendency receives extreme protection (except Trotskyism, which remains a punching bag), but you can be as divisive as you like over petty bullshit.
The sectarianism rule was supposed to promote unity, but it just redirects the division, failing to achievt its goal while restricting users and preventing what could be productive discussion.
You can think of it like a collectible coin that's worth a lot, but isn't actually usable as money.
Since these are just arbitrary lines of code, it's hard getting people exicted for them.
That's why they're tied to art. The token represents ownership of a piece of digital art.
But, when promoting the art so people try to get the NFT, you have to show off the art, meaning it's publically accessable and you're wasting electricity trying to buy... Nothing.
The resolution was an Imperialist attempt by the US to impose discipline within NATO. Turkey was buying Russian air defense systems, working with Russia on nuclear power, and diplomatically engaging with Russia to contain the Syrian Civil War. This was the reason for the resolution.
The US does not actually care about genocides, let alone ones that occured a century ago. Ilhan called them out on their bullshit, but did not deny the genocide.
A hierarchy of lifeforms exists in all worldviews. When you say "all lifeforms" you obviously exclude bacteria and plants, which you certainly kill on a regular basis.
Rejecting the existance of any hierarchy is a utopian perversion of leftist discourse. What we reject is unjust hierarchy, like those of race and class. We acknowledge the equality of all humans and fight to actualize that equality in our social structures, which are currently at odds with the natural equality of all people.
If you want to discuss human relationships with animals as a form of hierarchy, both sides need to explain why they rank animals below or equal to humans.
Nice bit, but maybe needs a content warning and context.
Anarchism often comes across as defined by opposition, rather than a positive vision. This is largely a misinterpretation of anarchism and what it means to have a stateless society. Nevertheless, it can atract people with questionable views, which is how we get an-caps and anarchist anti-Semites.
Agreed. One thing that was aparant in 90% of the non-vegan responses was that they aren't opposed to veganism or animal rights, they just don't see such a simple corelation between these concerns and their personal comsumption. There are other influences like culture, physical and mental health, and financial needs, as well as disagreements on what qualifies as abuse.
Yeah. Threads blowing up isn't the problem. Heated arguments aren't the problem. It's the behavior.
As for this comm, it's hard to decide what to do with it. I like discussion, but I don't like certain topics. If I want to discuss site policy, but not veganism, what do I do here? Wouldn't it be better to just create comms for different discussions, keep discussions there, and let arguments about those topics occur organically?
I think the current interpretation of sectarianism privlages debates about dumb shit over debates over theory and actual politics. Anything significant enough to define a tendency receives extreme protection (except Trotskyism, which remains a punching bag), but you can be as divisive as you like over petty bullshit.
The sectarianism rule was supposed to promote unity, but it just redirects the division, failing to achievt its goal while restricting users and preventing what could be productive discussion.