The software engineering faculty at my university was majorly women
im not saying people will be equal lol thats impossible
2 Likes
ah, I see, heterofatalism
2 Likes
either way, the notion of a whiggish process by which history constantly improves without material action or a Fukuyamaist end of history where the world will simply oscillate between one group dominating the others prevents people from actually taking any material action to try and make things better
2 Likes
theyâre not fundamentally different from each other - both are dead-end ideologies that completely fail to recognise the nature of history.
2 Likes
The next time @Silviu200530 claims that i live in a backwater country and his country is sOoOoOoOoOoOoO much better than mine!!
half these words i dont know what they mean explain like im 5
2 Likes
this inequal world we live in is maintained by a million tiny equalities. thatâs the point. we share money to survive, we sacriifce for others. when you divide your income with your roommates to pay rent, you prove that equality is possible. but right now, all this equity exists not for the sake of an egalitarian society, but a deeply exploitative one. that money you shared goes to your landlord, who uses it to maintain their control over your access to shelter.
2 Likes
i find the notion that human nature is naturally selfish to be laughable, because it can be just as easily said, considering the myriad ways in which human society functions, that humankind is naturally self-less and thatâs the problem.
the answer is that humankind isnât naturally anything. our organisations can be selfish ones maintained by selfless acts, or selfless ones maintained by selfish acts, or anything. a better world is possible.
1 Like
makes perfect sense
people will never be equal because we arent ants or bees
everyone have differing personalities
a society where men and woman are truly equal will never exist, it will only be truly equal if everyone was non-binary and it would be too hard to separate them
1 Like
i think that saying that history either:
- just always gets better for everyone
- can only get better for one group at the expense of others
is an ahistorical way of looking at things
1 Like
but there are millions of ways in which we do act in eusocial manners, is the thing! if we were truly selfish beings, we would not be communicating at all. we would not have systems of manners by which we decide what itâs acceptable to communicate. we would not have the notion that the purpose of talking is to be understood by the other, only that we can intimidate and further our own interests through speech.
itâs simply that right now, all these ways in which we do co-operate are for the sake of something exploitative.
well yeah its a mix
so why should our selfless instincts exist for the service of our selfish instincts, and not the other way around?
look, I canât fundamentally prove you wrong, just the same as you canât prove my philosophical perspective wrong, but I can say this: what do you actually have to gain from believing that equality is impossible but the complacency to never act to further it?
1 Like
what do we have to gain from believing that a better world, where trans people are liberated from our oppression, where no social group holds power over others from birth, is impossible?
we gain nothing from believing either side lol since its an ultimatum
it hasnt happened and theres no proof it will happen
nor there is proof that it wont
you choose to be hopeful and i choose to not care
i gain nothing from believing since apart from being broke i dont gain anything from equality
you have a lot more togain since youâre a trans woman
if we were truly selfless we would all be united already
1 Like
i think weâre truly selfless and truly selfish. I just think our better natures ought to be what we follow.
2 Likes
i would ask this, though: if this is truly meaningless, just a philosophical argument between optimism and fatalism, why do you recognise that my beliefs encourage me to want to take political action in the interests of my sisters, while you donât take political action even though youâre poor, and the domination of the rich over the poor is just as much a part of this as the domination of men over women?
1 Like