Maybe it’s the racing what makes people become rats
The paradigm of the market hasn’t been shifted away from, sadly
Maybe it’s the racing what makes people become rats
The paradigm of the market hasn’t been shifted away from, sadly
You can’t say it’d be against the constituion. That is debatable (and debated, see e.g. Wolfgang Abendroth).
The interpretation of the constitution is subject to powerdynamics as well. And it’s the only smart way to design a constitution if it’s meant to be the everstanding stable foundation of a society. … cause you know, those tend to change
I see. Thanks
Isnt thatvway to much volume for text? I would imagine every book ever written to be judt a few tb. But I also don’t know much about the issue
You’re welcome. Well kudos to them anyways I guess. Some hinterlands outeight ban gender equality language so I’ll them in as progressive :3
You can just replace / with *, in pronouns as well: Seine * ihre, Kolleg * innen, jede * r.
[Edit: without spaces inbetween, but otherwise things become italic in here]
This way you are the surest, since everybody is included every time.
I really have no clue where your teacher got this mixing thing from. But all this is work in progress. Societies and languages have to transform and that doesn’t need to be a linear process. Imo it’s even better if it isn’t, because exploration and multiperspectivity aren’t very linear by nature and irritation and changes make for good opportunities to think and discuss.
For example sometimes I like saying just one gender, if it makes for good, well placed irritation.
*Die Stadt sollte designierte Fahrradstraßen haben, damit Fahrradfahren auch ohne Helm hinreichend sicher ist.
I don’t know where you got this from or if you just invented it, but I have never heard/seen anyone mix * and /.
People interested in gender neutral language used / before the idea of more than two genders came up. Whoever wanted to specifically include non-binary people started using _ or *.
Also it makes little sense imo to include nb’s in the subject of a sentence to go back to binary scheme in the pronouns…
Thanks y’all
Sounds amazing. What is the aproximate cost for all the parts needed?
I feel everything you say. We need radical critique, grab things by their roots, stop dancing around.
But thinking, and I guess platon (as a pro philosopher) didn’t cover that, is mostly dialectical with doing, with everyday social practice. IRL they don’t seperate as the cognitivist and voluntaristic understanding of enligthment implies.
I think it’s still good to go vote to keep the worst from happening and to improve the circumstances for emancipatory struggle.
But I also think voting is one of the lesser important levers, compared to activism, organizing, unions and so on.
Both, giving up using levers and cosplaying trying by just voting for a shitty neoliberal mess and watch them making people frustrated enough to vote for trumpf and not doing anything else are irresponsible at the end of the day
“Strawman” - and then you just go with “vegans”… so all? Most? Some? Or maybe just the tiniest percentage? I think you understand for wich ones my argument applies and how “strawman” doesn’t, cause numbers. You know, if you pay attention…
Ok lets cut the rhetorics, I was trying to be sincere. I think you might wanna pay some more of that attention (omg sry I stop now) to “dialectic”. This does explicitly not mean you can turn the thing around and solely look at the other side.
So of course no change ever happens if all those one persons don’t do anything. But they will only change history if they change the underlying structures. To do so, they have to overcome their individualistic constriction and reach collective agency.
You gotta organize. The market won’t do, since it is THE form of organization that makes everyone a single player. Both, in their acting and in their consciousness.
This statement (about everyone single personal effort) only becomes meaningful when you take into consideration why people don’t. If you do, you will encounter the dialectics of structure and “personal choice” and how complicated history is and how it is not at all about “everybody make a small change in their life”.
The liberal feverdream of individual solutions for structural problems is bound to end up in “I buy good groceries”.
And, eventhough veganism is a good thing to do, this is why I’m personally so annoyed by vegan communities.
I dont know if reducing your personal sin count or whatever is a substitute for radical critique and political action, or an add-on, so I didn’t downvote. But maybe it explains some of it.
No great wisdom either, but my main thought about this is that games are designed to keep your dopamine coming (maybe overly nature scientific way of saying: they are exciting, rewarding).
Other activities can do that to, but some are rewarding in a more subtle way or more on a long term. Like, not “ringring yOu fOuNd DIAMOND!!”. So in comparison with games they might not trigger your motivation (dopamin?) as quickly.
On the other hand they are probably better at making you feel more general connectedness, belonging, sense, emotional diversity, etc.
So my advice (wich I struggle alot to follow myself) is: Avoid or limit the other dopamine traps like random scrolling and give yourself and the not-designed- for-dopamine-optimization-world some time, some patient goodwill. This might make that good ol’ world shine bright enough to not get bored all the time.
Subjective in this sense would mean everyone has their own singular way as opposed to “its the same/similar indepently of the person looking at it”.
Fast enough to shift dimensions