-
nihilistic
Not at all. I wasn't trying to say that 'objectively worse' isn't a thing, but that the assessment criteria for that is probably not something you can just pull out of your arse in order to straw-man someone.
Here in 'the global north', or western civilisation as it was once known, we're somewhat insulated from the reality of human existence; we're the lucky ones who get to pretend our little house of poisonous, blood-soaked cards can just keep on standing without inflicting untold immiseration on the less fortunate humans and all. the. other. life.
Gaza, ultimately because Anglophone hegemony and its perceived need to destabilise the middle east to keep that oil flowing into our tanks at a price we like. A river gets poisoned here because people like a little chrome strip on their shit, a forest gets cut down there because we don't seem to mind busy-ness being about nothing but profit, and government being about little more than corruption.
The routine atrocities are part and parcel of our colonialistic, extractive, zero-sum way of life. We're the one true vermin. It would be nice if we could just learn to stand still and stop breaking shit. Or at least maybe give the neurotypical bum-sniffers some sort of sandbox where they can play their silly status games without making such a mess of that actual reality which is apparently so very secondary in their considerations.
You are reading a single comment by @Kimmo and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Kimmo
itsbruce
Where this whole nihilistic chat falls down is you can't have it both ways.
Either you can give things a weighting* and 98% of human activity is a bad idea, or you can't and human activity just is.
*even if it can't done to the granular level in your eg