🔥 | Latest

ethical: If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)
ethical: If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)

If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)

ethical: If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing by Bmchris44 MORE MEMES
ethical: If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing by Bmchris44
MORE MEMES

If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing by Bmchris44 MORE MEMES

ethical: If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing
ethical: If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing

If you want to face yourself in the mirror it’s best if you do the moral and ethical thing

ethical: lauraantoniou: lastxleviathan: robotmango: tsunderepup: randomslasher: pastel-selkie: lesbianshepard: stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life.  But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”   The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical.  But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right? People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you.  P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon.  also, there is an extreme difference between what things or principles *i* personally am willing to die for, and what i would hazard others to die for. and this is a distinction i don’t think the conservative hard-right likes to face. an example: so, as the nazis began war against france, the staff of the louvre began crating up and shipping out the artworks. it was vital to them (for many reasons) that the nazis not get their hands on the collections, and hitler’s desire for them was known, so they dispersed the objects to the four winds; one of the curators personally traveled with la gioconda, mona lisa herself, in an unmarked crate, moving at least five times from location to location to avoid detection. they even removed and hid the nike of samothrace, “winged victory,” which is both delicate, having been pieced back together from fragments, and incredibly heavy, weighing over three metric tons. the curators who hid these artworks risked death to ensure that they wouldn’t fall into nazi hands. and yes, they are just paintings, just statues. but when i think about the idea of hitler capturing and standing smugly beside the nike of samothrace, a statue widely beloved as a symbol of liberty, i completely understand why someone would risk their life to prevent that. if my life was all that stood between a fascist dictator and a masterpiece that inspired millions, i would be willing to risk it. my belief in the power and necessity of art would demand i do so. if, however, a nazi held a gun to some kid’s head (any kid!) and asked me which crate the mona lisa was in, they could have it in a heartbeat. no problem! i wouldn’t even have to think about it. being willing to risk my own life on principle doesn’t mean i’m willing to see others endangered for those same principles. and that is exactly where the conservative hard-right falls right the fuck down. they are, typically, entirely willing to watch others suffer for their own principles. they are perfectly okay with seeing children in cages because of their supposed belief in law and order. they are perfectly willing to let women die from pregnancy complications because of their anti-abortion beliefs. they are alright with poverty and disease on general principle because they hold the free-market sacrosanct. and i guess from their own example they would save the statue of liberty and let human beings burn instead. but speaking as a leftist (i’m more comfortable with socialist tbh), my principles are not abstract things that i hold aside from life, apart or above my place as a human being in a society. my beliefs arise from being a person amidst people. i don’t love art for art’s sake alone, actually! i don’t love objects because they are objects: i love them because they are artifacts of our humanity, because they communicate and connect us, because they embody love and curiosity and fear and feeling. i love art because i love people. i want universal health care because i want to see people universally cared for. i want universal basic income because people’s safety and dignity should not be determined by their economic productivity to an employer. i am anti-war and pro-choice for the same reason: i value people’s lives but also their autonomy and right to self-determination. my beliefs are not abstractions. i could never value a type of economic system that i saw hurting people, no matter how much “growth” it produced. i could never love “law and order” more than i love a child, any child, i saw trapped in a cage. would i be willing to risk death, trying to save the statue of liberty? probably, yes. but there is no culture without people, and therefore i also believe there are no cultural treasures worth more than other people’s lives. and as far as i’m concerned the same goes for laws, or markets, or borders. Well said! This is an excellent ethical discussion.
ethical: lauraantoniou:
lastxleviathan:

robotmango:

tsunderepup:

randomslasher:

pastel-selkie:

lesbianshepard:
stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life

Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life

Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life. 
But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”  
The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical. 
But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right?
People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you. 
P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon. 



also, there is an extreme difference between what things or principles *i* personally am willing to die for, and what i would hazard others to die for. and this is a distinction i don’t think the conservative hard-right likes to face.
an example: so, as the nazis began war against france, the staff of the louvre began crating up and shipping out the artworks. it was vital to them (for many reasons) that the nazis not get their hands on the collections, and hitler’s desire for them was known, so they dispersed the objects to the four winds; one of the curators personally traveled with la gioconda, mona lisa herself, in an unmarked crate, moving at least five times from location to location to avoid detection. 
they even removed and hid the nike of samothrace, “winged victory,” which is both delicate, having been pieced back together from fragments, and incredibly heavy, weighing over three metric tons.
the curators who hid these artworks risked death to ensure that they wouldn’t fall into nazi hands. and yes, they are just paintings, just statues. but when i think about the idea of hitler capturing and standing smugly beside the nike of samothrace, a statue widely beloved as a symbol of liberty, i completely understand why someone would risk their life to prevent that. if my life was all that stood between a fascist dictator and a masterpiece that inspired millions, i would be willing to risk it. my belief in the power and necessity of art would demand i do so.
if, however, a nazi held a gun to some kid’s head (any kid!) and asked me which crate the mona lisa was in, they could have it in a heartbeat. no problem! i wouldn’t even have to think about it. being willing to risk my own life on principle doesn’t mean i’m willing to see others endangered for those same principles. 
and that is exactly where the conservative hard-right falls right the fuck down. they are, typically, entirely willing to watch others suffer for their own principles. they are perfectly okay with seeing children in cages because of their supposed belief in law and order. they are perfectly willing to let women die from pregnancy complications because of their anti-abortion beliefs. they are alright with poverty and disease on general principle because they hold the free-market sacrosanct. and i guess from their own example they would save the statue of liberty and let human beings burn instead. 
but speaking as a leftist (i’m more comfortable with socialist tbh), my principles are not abstract things that i hold aside from life, apart or above my place as a human being in a society. my beliefs arise from being a person amidst people. i don’t love art for art’s sake alone, actually! i don’t love objects because they are objects: i love them because they are artifacts of our humanity, because they communicate and connect us, because they embody love and curiosity and fear and feeling. i love art because i love people. i want universal health care because i want to see people universally cared for. i want universal basic income because people’s safety and dignity should not be determined by their economic productivity to an employer. i am anti-war and pro-choice for the same reason: i value people’s lives but also their autonomy and right to self-determination. my beliefs are not abstractions. i could never value a type of economic system that i saw hurting people, no matter how much “growth” it produced. i could never love “law and order” more than i love a child, any child, i saw trapped in a cage.
would i be willing to risk death, trying to save the statue of liberty? probably, yes. but there is no culture without people, and therefore i also believe there are no cultural treasures worth more than other people’s lives. and as far as i’m concerned the same goes for laws, or markets, or borders. 


Well said!

This is an excellent ethical discussion.

lauraantoniou: lastxleviathan: robotmango: tsunderepup: randomslasher: pastel-selkie: lesbianshepard: stupid leftists and their beli...

ethical: Self-Taught Philosopher is more logical and ethical than all you uneducated simps
ethical: Self-Taught Philosopher is more logical and ethical than all you uneducated simps

Self-Taught Philosopher is more logical and ethical than all you uneducated simps

ethical: buy ethical chocolate!
ethical: buy ethical chocolate!

buy ethical chocolate!

ethical: Ethical(?) Hacking
ethical: Ethical(?) Hacking

Ethical(?) Hacking

ethical: buy ethical chocolate!
ethical: buy ethical chocolate!

buy ethical chocolate!

ethical: An ethical debate
ethical: An ethical debate

An ethical debate

ethical: this my brain when i talk to someone who thinks capitalism is a fair and ethical system
ethical: this my brain when i talk to someone who thinks capitalism is a fair and ethical system

this my brain when i talk to someone who thinks capitalism is a fair and ethical system

ethical: Overkill? Maybe. Ethical? Nope. Fun? Yep.
ethical: Overkill? Maybe. Ethical? Nope. Fun? Yep.

Overkill? Maybe. Ethical? Nope. Fun? Yep.

ethical: There’s no way killing Watto is less ethical than forcing a child slave to risk his life
ethical: There’s no way killing Watto is less ethical than forcing a child slave to risk his life

There’s no way killing Watto is less ethical than forcing a child slave to risk his life

ethical: There is no ethical consumption under capitalism
ethical: There is no ethical consumption under capitalism

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism

ethical: Not saying the old active ingredient was ethical, but it worked better than the replacement.
ethical: Not saying the old active ingredient was ethical, but it worked better than the replacement.

Not saying the old active ingredient was ethical, but it worked better than the replacement.

ethical: puny little fucking brain. increased aerodynamic abilities. jumps to unreasonable ethical conclusions at the speed of light. thinks both sides are valid.
ethical: puny little fucking brain. increased aerodynamic abilities. jumps to unreasonable ethical conclusions at the speed of light. thinks both sides are valid.

puny little fucking brain. increased aerodynamic abilities. jumps to unreasonable ethical conclusions at the speed of light. thinks both...

ethical: Most ethical economic system inaction
ethical: Most ethical economic system inaction

Most ethical economic system inaction

ethical: Mechanicus is a game full of ethical and moral quandaries
ethical: Mechanicus is a game full of ethical and moral quandaries

Mechanicus is a game full of ethical and moral quandaries

ethical: Classic ethical dilemma
ethical: Classic ethical dilemma

Classic ethical dilemma

ethical: Ethical surreal
ethical: Ethical surreal

Ethical surreal

ethical: Ethical Delima (what would you do)
ethical: Ethical Delima (what would you do)

Ethical Delima (what would you do)

ethical: Ethical Dilemma
ethical: Ethical Dilemma

Ethical Dilemma

ethical: Seems like a fair and ethical amount to mean guys.
ethical: Seems like a fair and ethical amount to mean guys.

Seems like a fair and ethical amount to mean guys.

ethical: An ethical dilemma
ethical: An ethical dilemma

An ethical dilemma

ethical: An ethical dilemma
ethical: An ethical dilemma

An ethical dilemma

ethical: Something something ethical consumption
ethical: Something something ethical consumption

Something something ethical consumption

ethical: In Star Wars (1977), Alderaan was saved by the filmmaker’s decision after thorough reflections on the ethical consequences to the possible annihilation of a celestial body.
ethical: In Star Wars (1977), Alderaan was saved by the filmmaker’s decision after thorough reflections on the ethical consequences to the possible annihilation of a celestial body.

In Star Wars (1977), Alderaan was saved by the filmmaker’s decision after thorough reflections on the ethical consequences to the possibl...

ethical: Hmm yes ethical questions of lab created life forms intensify
ethical: Hmm yes ethical questions of lab created life forms intensify

Hmm yes ethical questions of lab created life forms intensify

ethical: The everyday ethical dilemma of this sub
ethical: The everyday ethical dilemma of this sub

The everyday ethical dilemma of this sub

ethical: Most scientists are evil FRAUDS and the only ethical researchers work for the oil industry!
ethical: Most scientists are evil FRAUDS and the only ethical researchers work for the oil industry!

Most scientists are evil FRAUDS and the only ethical researchers work for the oil industry!

ethical: we have finally achieved ethical consumption under capitalism
ethical: we have finally achieved ethical consumption under capitalism

we have finally achieved ethical consumption under capitalism

ethical: atlinmerrick: dancinggrimm: truckyousasha: thekaraokeninja: fandomsandfeminism: generalmaluga: albinwonderland: fandomsandfeminism: betterthanabortion: “My body, my choice” only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake. Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to. See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon.  Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy.  To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died.  You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies.  reblogging for commentary  But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too.  First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation.  And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument. Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all. If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other.  When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting. When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.”  And that is gross.  ^ THIS. This is this this THIS THIS THIS. THIS!!!!! This is probably the strongest and well worded/supported argument for abortion that I have ever read. WHY THE FUCK HAS TUMBLR FLAGGED THIS?! i’M FUCKING FURIOUS!!! Yep, this was flagged for me too. Which is why I’m going to reblog it several time until Tumblr implodes.
ethical: atlinmerrick:
dancinggrimm:

truckyousasha:

thekaraokeninja:

fandomsandfeminism:

generalmaluga:

albinwonderland:

fandomsandfeminism:

betterthanabortion:

“My body, my choice” only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.
See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 
Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 
To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 
You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

reblogging for commentary 

But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too. 

First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation. 
And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.
Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.
If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 
When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.
When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 
And that is gross. 

^ THIS. This is this this THIS THIS THIS. THIS!!!!!

This is probably the strongest and well worded/supported argument for abortion that I have ever read.

WHY THE FUCK HAS TUMBLR FLAGGED THIS?! i’M FUCKING FURIOUS!!!

Yep, this was flagged for me too. Which is why I’m going to reblog it several time until Tumblr implodes.

atlinmerrick: dancinggrimm: truckyousasha: thekaraokeninja: fandomsandfeminism: generalmaluga: albinwonderland: fandomsandfeminism:...

ethical: castielific: wolfinthethorns: Honestly, in my work as a therapist, I’m seeing this A Lot, and tbh I still don’t have a satisfactory approach to it. A heavy dose of Existentialist “create your own Purpose” tempered with “when the plane’s going down, put your own oxygen mask on first”, but… yeah, there is no ethical way to work on individual emotional distress without acknowledging the systemic socioeconomic, geopolitical fuckery going on at the moment, and the sheer grief that comes with it. I’m a guidance counselor/psychologist for teenagers and it’s getting really hard to motivate young people to work for a future they don’t believe in.   They look at ther future and see global warming, wwIII, unemployement, political unstability, poison in everything  they eat, the earth and animals dying all around them.  I saw this video where someone was asking french teens in the 50s how they imagine the future would be. The war hadn’t been over for long and yet it was all positive with like peace and flying cars and such. Then they went and ask the same questions to nowadays teens and hell that was depressing. Some still had hope, but it was just that “well I hope I’ll have a nice house and maybe some kid” but there was such a hesitancy to it, like they didn’t dare to hope too much.  People mock Greta Thunberg but what they don’t get is that when she said “you stole my dreams”, it was the truth.  Young people don’t get to dream like they used to. They don’t dream anymore, they grief all that won’t be anymore and that’s just so fucking sad. 
ethical: castielific:
wolfinthethorns:
Honestly, in my work as a therapist, I’m seeing this A Lot, and tbh I still don’t have a satisfactory approach to it. A heavy dose of Existentialist “create your own Purpose” tempered with “when the plane’s going down, put your own oxygen mask on first”, but… yeah, there is no ethical way to work on individual emotional distress without acknowledging the systemic socioeconomic, geopolitical fuckery going on at the moment, and the sheer grief that comes with it.
I’m a guidance counselor/psychologist for teenagers and it’s getting really hard to motivate young people to work for a future they don’t believe in. 
 They look at ther future and see global warming, wwIII, unemployement, political unstability, poison in everything  they eat, the earth and animals dying all around them. 
I saw this video where someone was asking french teens in the 50s how they imagine the future would be. The war hadn’t been over for long and yet it was all positive with like peace and flying cars and such. Then they went and ask the same questions to nowadays teens and hell that was depressing. Some still had hope, but it was just that “well I hope I’ll have a nice house and maybe some kid” but there was such a hesitancy to it, like they didn’t dare to hope too much. 
People mock Greta Thunberg but what they don’t get is that when she said “you stole my dreams”, it was the truth. 
Young people don’t get to dream like they used to. They don’t dream anymore, they grief all that won’t be anymore and that’s just so fucking sad. 

castielific: wolfinthethorns: Honestly, in my work as a therapist, I’m seeing this A Lot, and tbh I still don’t have a satisfactory appro...

ethical: “I’m experiencing an ethical dilemma”
ethical: “I’m experiencing an ethical dilemma”

“I’m experiencing an ethical dilemma”

ethical: Stop being an ethical.
ethical: Stop being an ethical.

Stop being an ethical.

ethical: And ethical hacking is my passion
ethical: And ethical hacking is my passion

And ethical hacking is my passion

ethical: In spite of my moral and ethical objections, I still laughed like an idiot.
ethical: In spite of my moral and ethical objections, I still laughed like an idiot.

In spite of my moral and ethical objections, I still laughed like an idiot.

ethical: Is having the strongest of wills ethical?
ethical: Is having the strongest of wills ethical?

Is having the strongest of wills ethical?

ethical: Ethical Elephant Sanctuary in Chiang Mai (Kanta Sanctuary)
ethical: Ethical Elephant Sanctuary in Chiang Mai (Kanta Sanctuary)

Ethical Elephant Sanctuary in Chiang Mai (Kanta Sanctuary)

ethical: It's just not ethical *proceeds to load a gass shell*
ethical: It's just not ethical *proceeds to load a gass shell*

It's just not ethical *proceeds to load a gass shell*

ethical: Actions deemed to be of low moral and ethical standard, a service offered for a cost that is deemed to be of reasonable value
ethical: Actions deemed to be of low moral and ethical standard, a service offered for a cost that is deemed to be of reasonable value

Actions deemed to be of low moral and ethical standard, a service offered for a cost that is deemed to be of reasonable value

ethical: The ethical argument
ethical: The ethical argument

The ethical argument

ethical: There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.
ethical: There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

ethical: Slpt: is it ethical, though?
ethical: Slpt: is it ethical, though?

Slpt: is it ethical, though?

ethical: spooky mistress misandry @hannahtraining Ain't that the fucking truth Me: "l feel like my life is pointless Therapist: "Why?" Me: "lmpending fascism and climate change mean I probably won't live to see 60,'" Therapist: "Are you sure thats rational? Me: *looks at camera like Jim on The Office* kate wagner@mcmansionhell this point in history sure is a really wild time to be trying to manage mental illness Show this thread 5:28 PM 14 Oct 18 castielific: wolfinthethorns: Honestly, in my work as a therapist, I’m seeing this A Lot, and tbh I still don’t have a satisfactory approach to it. A heavy dose of Existentialist “create your own Purpose” tempered with “when the plane’s going down, put your own oxygen mask on first”, but… yeah, there is no ethical way to work on individual emotional distress without acknowledging the systemic socioeconomic, geopolitical fuckery going on at the moment, and the sheer grief that comes with it. I’m a guidance counselor/psychologist for teenagers and it’s getting really hard to motivate young people to work for a future they don’t believe in.   They look at ther future and see global warming, wwIII, unemployement, political unstability, poison in everything  they eat, the earth and animals dying all around them.  I saw this video where someone was asking french teens in the 50s how they imagine the future would be. The war hadn’t been over for long and yet it was all positive with like peace and flying cars and such. Then they went and ask the same questions to nowadays teens and hell that was depressing. Some still had hope, but it was just that “well I hope I’ll have a nice house and maybe some kid” but there was such a hesitancy to it, like they didn’t dare to hope too much.  People mock Greta Thunberg but what they don’t get is that when she said “you stole my dreams”, it was the truth.  Young people don’t get to dream like they used to. They don’t dream anymore, they grief all that won’t be anymore and that’s just so fucking sad. 
ethical: spooky mistress misandry
 @hannahtraining
 Ain't that the fucking truth
 Me: "l feel like my life is pointless
 Therapist: "Why?"
 Me: "lmpending fascism and climate
 change mean I probably won't live to
 see 60,'"
 Therapist: "Are you sure thats
 rational?
 Me: *looks at camera like Jim on The
 Office*
 kate wagner@mcmansionhell
 this point in history sure is a really wild time to be
 trying to manage mental illness
 Show this thread
 5:28 PM 14 Oct 18
castielific:

wolfinthethorns:
Honestly, in my work as a therapist, I’m seeing this A Lot, and tbh I still don’t have a satisfactory approach to it. A heavy dose of Existentialist “create your own Purpose” tempered with “when the plane’s going down, put your own oxygen mask on first”, but… yeah, there is no ethical way to work on individual emotional distress without acknowledging the systemic socioeconomic, geopolitical fuckery going on at the moment, and the sheer grief that comes with it.
I’m a guidance counselor/psychologist for teenagers and it’s getting really hard to motivate young people to work for a future they don’t believe in. 
 They look at ther future and see global warming, wwIII, unemployement, political unstability, poison in everything  they eat, the earth and animals dying all around them. 
I saw this video where someone was asking french teens in the 50s how they imagine the future would be. The war hadn’t been over for long and yet it was all positive with like peace and flying cars and such. Then they went and ask the same questions to nowadays teens and hell that was depressing. Some still had hope, but it was just that “well I hope I’ll have a nice house and maybe some kid” but there was such a hesitancy to it, like they didn’t dare to hope too much. 
People mock Greta Thunberg but what they don’t get is that when she said “you stole my dreams”, it was the truth. 
Young people don’t get to dream like they used to. They don’t dream anymore, they grief all that won’t be anymore and that’s just so fucking sad. 

castielific: wolfinthethorns: Honestly, in my work as a therapist, I’m seeing this A Lot, and tbh I still don’t have a satisfactory appr...

ethical: Reviews Service: Home Posts Videos Photos Events Groups I have been trying to connect with how I can sell something when so many are needing donations right now. It feels like the weight of expectation that women should give a whole lot more than she receives. I buy into this paradigm often. Thinking I should give way more than I receive. But I'm coming to learn that the more receive the more I can healthily give and this exchange is how we help each other- how we build community and how we continue to hold up those in need. I'm a very ethical person and I couldn't bring myself to sell something right now I didn't feel that people needed. But when I sit with this and ask myself how I would be going right now without oils to help me work through the emotions, without oils to support the physical pain of feeling so much and support the physical sensations of sleep deprivation, declining air quality and tension? I would hate to be without my oils right now. My kids are asking for daily massages. I'm gifting oils to anyone I see with a need. Gifting oils as a Thankyou and emotional support to those I love. And I want to keep this up and feed my family. So I bring to you a sales post filled with our 20% off sales this month. Because I believe this is a fantastic time to get oils in your hands. I believe it's a fantastic time for me to sell oils and the recipients of my giving. so I can support you, me If you feel like you need support of any kind right now please don't feel selfish for wanting something for you when you have more than someone else. There is nothing heroic about being a martyr. Let me know if you'd like help deciding which 20% off with Free Frankincense starter kit is for you. Essential Collection Kit doTERAA Plus Mood Management The package to cover all bases SALE PRICE WAS $298 OPTIONAL ADD ON PETAL DIFFUSER 158 Now $2632O FREE FRANKINCENSE My country is on fire but I’m very ethical and couldn’t possibly sell during this awful time but please also buy my shit
ethical: Reviews
 Service:
 Home
 Posts
 Videos
 Photos
 Events
 Groups
 I have been trying to connect with how I can sell something when so many
 are needing donations right now.
 It feels like the weight of expectation that women should give a whole lot
 more than she receives.
 I buy into this paradigm often.
 Thinking I should give way more than I receive.
 But I'm coming to learn that the more receive the more I can healthily give
 and this exchange is how we help each other- how we build community
 and how we continue to hold up those in need.
 I'm a very ethical person and I couldn't bring myself to sell something right
 now I didn't feel that people needed.
 But when I sit with this and ask myself how I would be going right now
 without oils to help me work through the emotions, without oils to support
 the physical pain of feeling so much and support the physical sensations
 of sleep deprivation, declining air quality and tension?
 I would hate to be without my oils right now.
 My kids are asking for daily massages.
 I'm gifting oils to anyone I see with a need.
 Gifting oils as a Thankyou and emotional support to those I love.
 And I want to keep this up and feed my family.
 So I bring to you a sales post filled with our 20% off sales this month.
 Because I believe this is a fantastic time to get oils in your hands.
 I believe it's a fantastic time for me to sell oils
 and the recipients of my giving.
 so I can support you, me
 If you feel like you need support of any kind right now please don't feel
 selfish for wanting something for you when you have more than someone
 else.
 There is nothing heroic about being a martyr.
 Let me know if you'd like help deciding which 20% off with Free
 Frankincense starter kit is for you.
 Essential Collection Kit
 doTERAA
 Plus Mood Management
 The package to cover all bases
 SALE PRICE
 WAS $298
 OPTIONAL ADD ON
 PETAL DIFFUSER
 158
 Now $2632O
 FREE
 FRANKINCENSE
My country is on fire but I’m very ethical and couldn’t possibly sell during this awful time but please also buy my shit

My country is on fire but I’m very ethical and couldn’t possibly sell during this awful time but please also buy my shit

ethical: www.EXPRESSIVEEGG.ORG PRESENTS (THE TRUISH AND ACTUAL POLITICAL SPECTRUM OSCAR WILDE WILLIAM MORRIS BARACK OBAMA STALIN GEORGE ORWELL MY GRANDAD KRISHNAMURTI MARX JEREMY CORBYN FD ROOSEVELT STEVEN PINKER TONY BLAIR DONALD TRUMP HITLER IVAN ILLICH TOLSTOY ALDOUS HUXLEY NOAM CHOMSKY example proponents HENRY MILLER WILHELM REICH JOHN PILGER CHARLIE CHAPLIN MARK FISHER KEN LOACH MICHEL FOUCAULT SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK ADAM CURTIS ALAIN DE BOTTON NICK COHEN THE MAIL HENRY DAVIO THOREAU (see notes) ME BEZ FRANKJE BOYLE NATIONAL FRONT BARRY LONG GEORGE WOODCOCK NOE ITO MARK CURTIS MEDIALENS MARTIN LUTHER KING BERNIE SANDERS MICHAEL MOORE JORDAN PETERSON PLATO LAO TZU HUGO CHAVEZ RONALD REAGAN AYN RAND JOHN ZERZAN DH LAWRENCE MY MUM YOUNG RAN PRIEUR LEWIS MUMFORD AMY GOODMAN GEORGE GALLOWAY JOHN RUSKIN CLEMENT ATTLEE GEORGE MONBIOT HOLLYWOD HEGE ROBERT MCNAMARA ILL HICKS OLD RAN PRIEUR R PHILIP K DICK OB BLACK PETER KROPOTKIN JOHN LENNON RICHARD WOLFF DAVID CRAEBER CHARLES DICKENS MOST OF THE WORLD MORRISSEY JUNG ST.PAUL LAURIE PENNY CHURCHILL LENIN THE BBC THATCHER HENRY KISSINGER actual meaning official meaning - THE LEFT THE CENTRE 'the far left' / 'the loony left" THE FANATICAL RIGHT THE EXTREME LEFT THE FAR LEFT THE RIGHT THE FAR RIGHT *the left" 'insanity 'terrorism' / 'extremism *the right" politics DEMOCRACTIC 'ANARCHISM (MARKET) 'DEMOCRACY / 'INDIVIDUALISM OMNARCHISM / STANDARD ANARCHISM (SOCIAL) DEMOCRACY LIBERTARIANISH MARXISM / OFFICIAL SOCIALISM LIBERTARIAN / DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM LIBERALISM (UK) FASCISM RADICAL ANARCHISM "REFUSUAL OF WORK" MOVEMENT INDIMDUALISM (POLITICAL) ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM UNOFFICIAL SOCIALISM SUPPORT FOR TOTALITARIAN SYSTEM TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP INDMDUALISM (WILDIAN) POST-LEFTISM SITUATIONISM "ENLIGHTENED' MONARCHISM AUTHORITARIAN MONARCHISM "CAPITALISM (AKA PRIVATE CAPITALISM) ANARCHO-PRIMITIVISM "COMMUNISM' (AKA STATE CAPITALISM) PROFESSIONALISM CORPORATE SOCIALISM ('STAGVERSION') AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM LIBERALISM (US) / WAGE-SLAVERY FEUDALISM / TRADITIONAL SLAVERY THE OVERTON WINDOW (OFFICIALLY ACCEPTABLE / 'MAINSTREAM') Rule by democratic totalitarian systems, excess of choice, limitation of access to speech platforms, assimilation of minorities, belief in emotional-morality, 'imagination' and flexibility, and control by desire, debt and implicit threat of violence. No overt control of dissent (system selects for system-friendly voices). Huxleyan Dystopia. Most of the modern world (USA, Europe, Japan, etc.) Rule by unspoken context or by temporary and powerless leaders. No institutions (no need for them). lawless (soft guideline bounded), moneyless (gift-economy) and timeless. Used by most societies (and most friendships) for most of human history. Never been tried in a No state, extreme limitation of power. Citizen's income, local currencies, jubilees, etc. Extreme limits on energY consumption, complexity of institutions, power of technology. Untried. (N.b. Some strands of anarchism (e.g. Stirnan) are fanatical, extremely violent and cultdike). These are much publicised by 'the mainstream Rule by workers' councils, direct democracy, etc. Technophilic. Scattered examples in history (eg. Spanish civil war, pre-Bolshevik soviet Russia / Makhnovist Ukraine, etc). Rule by intellectuals and professionals oversee- ing democratic welfare state. Heavy restrictions on wealth-acquisition, privatisation, etc. Heavily unionised workplaces, heavily subsidised public services. Small or non-existant military. Very rare, but 1950s -1970s Britain, Scandinavia and Cuba exhibited many features. Rule by autocratic totalitarian people/ elites, limitation of choice, repression of speech and repression of minorities, belief in order, routine and rationalmorality and control by enclosure, fear and explicit violence. Violent repression of dissent (via "the party line). Orwellian Dystopia. Most of the pre-modern world + USSR, Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc ('the bad guys') government examples modern or agriIcultural society post B,000 BC. > SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM SOCIAL EQUALITY AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM (theology) PANTHEISM "SPIRITUALISM' MYSTIC THEISM THEISM ATHEISM AGNOTICISM EXPLANATORY NOTES Marx isn't to the right of Chomsky! FDR isn't to the left of Stalin! And so on and so forth. First of all the above graph represents the political spectrum as it actually is, in real life, rather than as it is presented in the mainstream media (MSM). In real life, for example, the USSR practiced state capitalism (a system where the state controlled surplus) which is only different to the private capitalism of the west (where private owners control surplus) in the most superficial details. Life for ordinary people under 'capitalism, 'communism' and 'fascism' is identical, because they all share the same basic attitude to money, law, growth, science, work and so on: hence Stalin, Blair, Hitler, Obama and co are all on the far right. The Overton Window is Nonsensel Another reason why this graph seems doubtful is, of course, because real people, in the real world, often have complex and contradictory views about a range of subjects. Most of the views of DH Lawrence, for example, were about as far left as you can possi- bly get; he rejected civilisation in toto. Yet he also suggested the working class should all be rounded up into Crystal Palace and gassed! My grandad used to read The Sun, voted conservative, praised Thatcher and regularly warned me about the blacks and gays up in London; yet in his actual behaviour he vigoriously reject- ed authoritarianism and inequality and believed that ordinary people did not need professionals to direct their activities. The Overton Window represents the limits of acceptable thought in mainstream media and politics. The left side is the position of the middle or professional class, the (new) Labour Party or Democrat Party, the Guardian, the BBC, the Washington Post and so on. These groups are firmly to the far right of the actual political spectrum, although it is difficult to perceive this as they also com- prise journalists and academics who are slightly to the left of them; Steven Pinker, Owen Jones, Christopher Hitchens and other corp employees (stagversives) are used to give an impression of balance and adversarialism, and to attract members of the 'anti-corp' or "socialist' demographic into their ads for carbon-neutral package holidays and ethical mousemats. To venture beyond the corp-es- tablishment friendly feminism' of Laurie Penny or the 'originality' of reactionary writers like Jared Diamond or Malcolm Gladwell-to suggest that wealth should be radically redistributed, that we should head towards a classless society or that the MSN is organ- ised to reward only establishment-friendly voices-is to go beyond the pale, into the land of woo' or, more ominously, 'extremism' This is why the Overton Window is ignored or dismissed in the MSM, which must maintain the illusion of 'impartiality, variety. 'balance' and even 'anti-establishment bias: It's also why maniacs like Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm describe themselves as 'left-wing." So if the MSM left and right are fictions, what is left and right? On the left is individual freedom and equality, which is based on a basic basic trust in humanity, or in reality. On the right is authori- tarianism and social stratification, which is based on basic cynicism. The scale, therefore, is to some degree* one of sanity. The further right you go, the more you view the universe as a vast pyramid of power which people must do whatever is necessary to climb. For this reason I have listed 'theology, which bears upon one's funda- mental political outlook, the right being typically a place where aggressive atheism, abrahamic theism, sham 'yoga-and-mindful- ness' spirituality thrive, the left being a place of heretical (non-duat ist) theism, pantheism and the like, and the centre, typically, informed by reasonable agnostics and open-minded atheists. Likewise in no sense is Bill Hicks a Tolstoyan or Slavoj Žižek a Jungi- an or Thatcher a Hegelian. So the above scale is faithful to the range of political opinions outside the reverse telescope of the mainstream media, but it also represents a kind of schematic aggregate or rough approximation of the political position of major characters in Western political history (most of whom, yes, were white and male). Of course Hitler and Stalin, like a few ultra-ultra-ultra right wingers today, are officially just outside the acceptable spectrum (it's just not the done thing nowadays to explicitly persecute racial minori- ties). But their fundamental approach to society and to reality remains the same as Pinochet's, Thatcher's, Clinton's, Churchill's and so on: which is why in all their societies the poor end up getting shafted and nature ends up getting decimated. by Darren Allen llustrations by AI *ie. bearing in mind the approximations mentioned above -it's ludicrous to decisively rate anyone's sanity- hence 'truish-let alone cal Hicks saner than Orwell or Wilde saner than Morris. Honestly not sure what to title this serpentine "political spectrum"
ethical: www.EXPRESSIVEEGG.ORG PRESENTS
 (THE TRUISH AND ACTUAL
 POLITICAL SPECTRUM
 OSCAR WILDE
 WILLIAM MORRIS
 BARACK OBAMA
 STALIN
 GEORGE ORWELL
 MY GRANDAD
 KRISHNAMURTI
 MARX
 JEREMY CORBYN
 FD ROOSEVELT
 STEVEN PINKER
 TONY BLAIR
 DONALD TRUMP
 HITLER
 IVAN ILLICH
 TOLSTOY
 ALDOUS HUXLEY
 NOAM CHOMSKY
 example
 proponents
 HENRY MILLER
 WILHELM REICH
 JOHN PILGER CHARLIE CHAPLIN MARK FISHER KEN LOACH
 MICHEL FOUCAULT SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK ADAM CURTIS ALAIN DE BOTTON NICK COHEN
 THE MAIL
 HENRY DAVIO THOREAU
 (see notes)
 ME
 BEZ
 FRANKJE BOYLE
 NATIONAL
 FRONT
 BARRY LONG
 GEORGE WOODCOCK
 NOE ITO MARK CURTIS
 MEDIALENS
 MARTIN LUTHER KING
 BERNIE SANDERS MICHAEL MOORE
 JORDAN PETERSON
 PLATO
 LAO TZU
 HUGO CHAVEZ
 RONALD REAGAN AYN RAND
 JOHN ZERZAN
 DH LAWRENCE
 MY MUM
 YOUNG RAN PRIEUR
 LEWIS MUMFORD
 AMY GOODMAN
 GEORGE GALLOWAY JOHN RUSKIN
 CLEMENT ATTLEE GEORGE MONBIOT
 HOLLYWOD HEGE ROBERT MCNAMARA
 ILL HICKS
 OLD RAN PRIEUR
 R
 PHILIP K DICK
 OB BLACK PETER KROPOTKIN JOHN LENNON RICHARD WOLFF DAVID CRAEBER CHARLES DICKENS MOST OF THE WORLD MORRISSEY JUNG ST.PAUL
 LAURIE PENNY
 CHURCHILL LENIN
 THE BBC THATCHER HENRY KISSINGER
 actual meaning
 official meaning -
 THE LEFT
 THE CENTRE
 'the far left' / 'the loony left"
 THE FANATICAL RIGHT
 THE EXTREME LEFT
 THE FAR LEFT
 THE RIGHT
 THE FAR RIGHT
 *the left"
 'insanity
 'terrorism' / 'extremism
 *the right"
 politics
 DEMOCRACTIC 'ANARCHISM
 (MARKET) 'DEMOCRACY / 'INDIVIDUALISM
 OMNARCHISM /
 STANDARD ANARCHISM
 (SOCIAL) DEMOCRACY
 LIBERTARIANISH
 MARXISM / OFFICIAL SOCIALISM
 LIBERTARIAN / DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
 LIBERALISM (UK)
 FASCISM
 RADICAL ANARCHISM
 "REFUSUAL OF WORK" MOVEMENT
 INDIMDUALISM (POLITICAL)
 ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM
 UNOFFICIAL SOCIALISM
 SUPPORT FOR TOTALITARIAN SYSTEM
 TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP
 INDMDUALISM (WILDIAN)
 POST-LEFTISM
 SITUATIONISM
 "ENLIGHTENED' MONARCHISM
 AUTHORITARIAN MONARCHISM
 "CAPITALISM (AKA PRIVATE CAPITALISM)
 ANARCHO-PRIMITIVISM
 "COMMUNISM' (AKA STATE CAPITALISM)
 PROFESSIONALISM
 CORPORATE SOCIALISM ('STAGVERSION')
 AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISM
 LIBERALISM (US) / WAGE-SLAVERY
 FEUDALISM / TRADITIONAL SLAVERY
 THE OVERTON WINDOW (OFFICIALLY ACCEPTABLE / 'MAINSTREAM')
 Rule by democratic totalitarian systems,
 excess of choice, limitation of access to
 speech platforms, assimilation of minorities,
 belief in emotional-morality, 'imagination' and
 flexibility, and control by desire, debt and
 implicit threat of violence. No overt control of
 dissent (system selects for system-friendly
 voices). Huxleyan Dystopia. Most of the
 modern world (USA, Europe, Japan, etc.)
 Rule by unspoken context or by
 temporary and powerless leaders.
 No institutions (no need for them).
 lawless (soft guideline bounded),
 moneyless (gift-economy) and
 timeless. Used by most societies
 (and most friendships) for most of
 human history. Never been tried in a
 No state, extreme limitation of power.
 Citizen's income, local currencies,
 jubilees, etc. Extreme limits on energY
 consumption, complexity of institutions,
 power of technology. Untried.
 (N.b. Some strands of anarchism (e.g.
 Stirnan) are fanatical, extremely violent
 and cultdike). These are much publicised
 by 'the mainstream
 Rule by workers' councils, direct
 democracy, etc. Technophilic.
 Scattered examples in history (eg.
 Spanish civil war, pre-Bolshevik soviet
 Russia / Makhnovist Ukraine, etc).
 Rule by intellectuals and professionals oversee-
 ing democratic welfare state. Heavy restrictions
 on wealth-acquisition, privatisation, etc. Heavily
 unionised workplaces, heavily subsidised public
 services. Small or non-existant military. Very rare,
 but 1950s -1970s Britain, Scandinavia and Cuba
 exhibited many features.
 Rule by autocratic totalitarian people/
 elites, limitation of choice, repression of
 speech and repression of minorities, belief
 in order, routine and rationalmorality and
 control by enclosure, fear and explicit
 violence. Violent repression of dissent (via
 "the party line). Orwellian Dystopia. Most
 of the pre-modern world + USSR, Nazi
 Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc ('the bad guys')
 government
 examples
 modern or agriIcultural society post
 B,000 BC.
 > SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM
 SOCIAL EQUALITY AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
 (theology)
 PANTHEISM
 "SPIRITUALISM'
 MYSTIC THEISM
 THEISM
 ATHEISM
 AGNOTICISM
 EXPLANATORY NOTES
 Marx isn't to the right of Chomsky! FDR isn't to the left of Stalin!
 And so on and so forth. First of all the above graph represents the
 political spectrum as it actually is, in real life, rather than as it is
 presented in the mainstream media (MSM).
 In real life, for example, the USSR practiced state capitalism (a
 system where the state controlled surplus) which is only different
 to the private capitalism of the west (where private owners
 control surplus) in the most superficial details. Life for ordinary
 people under 'capitalism, 'communism' and 'fascism' is identical,
 because they all share the same basic attitude to money, law,
 growth, science, work and so on: hence Stalin, Blair, Hitler, Obama
 and co are all on the far right.
 The Overton Window is Nonsensel
 Another reason why this graph seems doubtful is, of course,
 because real people, in the real world, often have complex and
 contradictory views about a range of subjects. Most of the views of
 DH Lawrence, for example, were about as far left as you can possi-
 bly get; he rejected civilisation in toto. Yet he also suggested the
 working class should all be rounded up into Crystal Palace and
 gassed! My grandad used to read The Sun, voted conservative,
 praised Thatcher and regularly warned me about the blacks and
 gays up in London; yet in his actual behaviour he vigoriously reject-
 ed authoritarianism and inequality and believed that ordinary
 people did not need professionals to direct their activities.
 The Overton Window represents the limits of acceptable thought
 in mainstream media and politics. The left side is the position of the
 middle or professional class, the (new) Labour Party or Democrat
 Party, the Guardian, the BBC, the Washington Post and so on.
 These groups are firmly to the far right of the actual political
 spectrum, although it is difficult to perceive this as they also com-
 prise journalists and academics who are slightly to the left of them;
 Steven Pinker, Owen Jones, Christopher Hitchens and other corp
 employees (stagversives) are used to give an impression of balance
 and adversarialism, and to attract members of the 'anti-corp' or
 "socialist' demographic into their ads for carbon-neutral package
 holidays and ethical mousemats. To venture beyond the corp-es-
 tablishment friendly feminism' of Laurie Penny or the 'originality' of
 reactionary writers like Jared Diamond or Malcolm Gladwell-to
 suggest that wealth should be radically redistributed, that we
 should head towards a classless society or that the MSN is organ-
 ised to reward only establishment-friendly voices-is to go beyond
 the pale, into the land of woo' or, more ominously, 'extremism'
 This is why the Overton Window is ignored or dismissed in the
 MSM, which must maintain the illusion of 'impartiality, variety.
 'balance' and even 'anti-establishment bias: It's also why maniacs
 like Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm describe themselves as 'left-wing."
 So if the MSM left and right are fictions, what is left and right?
 On the left is individual freedom and equality, which is based on a
 basic basic trust in humanity, or in reality. On the right is authori-
 tarianism and social stratification, which is based on basic cynicism.
 The scale, therefore, is to some degree* one of sanity. The further
 right you go, the more you view the universe as a vast pyramid of
 power which people must do whatever is necessary to climb. For
 this reason I have listed 'theology, which bears upon one's funda-
 mental political outlook, the right being typically a place where
 aggressive atheism, abrahamic theism, sham 'yoga-and-mindful-
 ness' spirituality thrive, the left being a place of heretical (non-duat
 ist) theism, pantheism and the like, and the centre, typically,
 informed by reasonable agnostics and open-minded atheists.
 Likewise in no sense is Bill Hicks a Tolstoyan or Slavoj Žižek a Jungi-
 an or Thatcher a Hegelian.
 So the above scale is faithful to the range of political opinions
 outside the reverse telescope of the mainstream media, but it also
 represents a kind of schematic aggregate or rough approximation
 of the political position of major characters in Western political
 history (most of whom, yes, were white and male).
 Of course Hitler and Stalin, like a few ultra-ultra-ultra right wingers
 today, are officially just outside the acceptable spectrum (it's just
 not the done thing nowadays to explicitly persecute racial minori-
 ties). But their fundamental approach to society and to reality
 remains the same as Pinochet's, Thatcher's, Clinton's, Churchill's
 and so on: which is why in all their societies the poor end up
 getting shafted and nature ends up getting decimated.
 by Darren Allen
 llustrations by AI
 *ie. bearing in mind the approximations mentioned above -it's ludicrous to decisively rate
 anyone's sanity- hence 'truish-let alone cal Hicks saner than Orwell or Wilde saner than Morris.
Honestly not sure what to title this serpentine "political spectrum"

Honestly not sure what to title this serpentine "political spectrum"