Calvin being an anarchist explains a lot about my politics.
Thank you for teaching me something about myself.
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
663 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
7650 readers
2371 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rereading Calvin and Hobbes as an adult is surreal. All the things you loved as a kid were still there, but you understand the philosophical musings so much better. Those wagon rides were wasted on 7 year-old me.
A couple lifetimes ago I worked for a company that provided web metrics for GoComics. We had a meeting to go over them, and I was so excited to see that Calvin & Hobbes comics had 5X the views of every other comic.
So I got on the phone and I pointed this out to the marketing drones on the call, and one of them said "Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me. Why don't people like our new comics?"
And I felt a deep, deep sorrow for them.
Some people play Disco Elysium and think the story and characters are lame. I don't believe in a soul, but some people are more soulless than others.
I tried playing that game and it had a lot of philosophical ideas.
But the world was just too depressing and the amount of reading that game required to be fun was too much.
Life being hard definitely does build character though. It just also happens to make that person extremely more likely to be miserable too.
My character is fucking huge. It needs to stop being built.
Also when Republicans say it, they only think other people need to build character.
it's just not the only way to build character
Suffering builds character. It's the JJK way
Life being better is what actually builds character, not being worse. Arguably life being worse convinces people to be evil, albeit for pretty justifiable reasons.
Calvin's dad never said that. He only ever said that household chores build character.
Well, Calvin did say "Being miserable builds character" when impersonating his dad.
I don't remember either one of his parents ever laughing like that. I love this one!
And camping in miserable conditions.
maybe the lying presentation-style of the arguments in the given picture then sort of also represents the same style arguments of those who became rich and powerful by only lies and abuses?
not sure, just speculation ;-)
but if making it worse and causing losses on the other side for the gain of an "imagined good outcome" where the other (victim) just "has to accept the loss and work hard to make the good outcome to become real" is considered to be "good" behaviour by them, then maybe they also say within the same argument that bankrobbers, shoplifters and housebreakers should be honored (as in taxfree extra money paid by the victim or such) for "helping them (bank, shop, homeowner) to develop better security" instead of prosecution and forced handing back of what they took.
just to mention.
They are not wrong as it does build character. They never said it was good character.
It doesn't necessarily build bad character, I didn't have a great upbringing and I think it did result in some positives in my character. However, as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat and I think there are better ways of bringing out positive character traits...
What kind of human trash advocates for cruelty to animals? /s (this seems to be the state of discourse in this country these days)
Meh, it's a practice in gratitude. We have it better than 99.99% of humans that ever lived. Is that an excuse to stop improving for future generations? No. It does make our shitty life seem a little less shitty tho. Things can always get worse, if it can't your dead and won't be phased anyways.
We have it better than 99.99% of humans that ever lived.
Do we really? I often see this talking point thrown around and when asked for elaboration, usually wealth is pointed at.
I poop in cleaner water than people used to drink. I still have teeth because a dentist filled my cavities. I'm typing this comment on a device that can show me nearly anything I want.
We've got it really, really good. It could also be better and more just.
There's a ton more that people always forget. How often do you worry about random brigands attacking your town and burning everything? No, I don't care if are actually still afraid of that (you scaredy cat). It doesn't happen now, but it used to happen all the time.
How many of your 10 children have died of preventable illness? It used to be like 30%. Even royal families had problems with disease. Look at this shit:
Peter the Great had two wives, with whom he had fifteen children, three of whom survived to adulthood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great
How afraid are you of having enough food to eat to last the winter? That was an annual worry, and is the reason why harvest festivals exist. Unless you are from the third world, your family has not worried about this for 100 years.
Eh it's all subjective and honestly a bullshit statistic to get people to shut up about how bad they have it, à la "well kids are starving in Africa."
Don't get me wrong. Way less child death, way less time spent processing your own food for the winter, access to advanced medicine if you can afford it but otherwise it really doesn't mean anything. It's a clever statement to try to push back against people wanting it to be better and pretend they are enlightened to how bad it is.
Life expectancy is still basically the same. It's not like people didn't live well into their 90s even Before Common Era. Less physical labor is nice but also new health issues are arising anyways. And actually average lifespan is going down for those with less wealth.
It's essentially a litmus test for seeing if you can be an optimist in the face systemic issues that are currently occuring and an easy hand wave of "well im sure people were more upset in the past"
I think the only true metric we should be comparing people to is the present. The majority will always be in the past but the people alive today are more important than ghosts.
Life expectancy is still basically the same.
No? life expecancy has gone from ~28 years to ~75 years
it’s not like people didn’t live well into their 90s even Before Common Era.
Yes, but this has gone from being the exception to being relatively frequent
The maximum life span a human can achieve has not changed, but life expectancy absolutely has. (last 2 paragraphs)
I think it's still not obvious that it just means a higher percentage are making it to older ages. If you made it into your 30s your likelihood of living to old age was pretty good.
I think my argument does make light of how much the average person was dying really young though.
If you made it into your 30s your likelihood of living to old age was pretty good.
It may have been 'pretty good', but its still markedly worse than what it is now.
Studies show that people still living in tribes are happier than people living in cities. I assume when most people were hunter-gatherers, people were happier (even though they were much worse-off in many ways). Large hierarchies and wealth and power disparities cause a lot of unhappiness, IMO.
I dunno, I see Democrats more as Calvin's "Life could be a whole lot better too!" Then they poll to find out how life could be better, make lofty campaign promises that inevitably become watered-down half-measures when they have to build a coalition around their various corporate interests, get stonewalled by Republicans who call them un-American socialist scum on Fox News for even trying to make life better, go on the political talkshow tour to sheepishly defend their character, get ignored, then give up and do nothing until the next election cycle.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm gonna need someone to explain how Anarchy is better. You've seen the Purge, right?
An anarchist's idea of anarchy is never really the simple definition of anarchy that most people know.
From what I've read, the simplest way to put it is not the abolition of rules, but the abolition of any state mechanism that's separate from the population or that could enforce rules without the broad consensus of the people.
For instance, most anarchist philosopers still argue for a form of government, but they always try to integrate it with the people as much as possible through things such as council democracies.
Well that's not "the purge" obviously, but every description of Anarchy just sounds like it's recreating a high school government (complete with cliques and everything). At any anarchist commune, the popular people are elected to the council. That's how popularity works.
First world countries already have representative democracies. People are getting what they vote for. The problem is: people are stupid and shortsighted. That problem would be worse if you remove the institutions we've built up.
To a degree, I agree, and that's why I'm not an anarchist. I do, however, believe that most of the reforms we need for our democracies are similar to the goals of anarchism, and therefore anarchists can be good to read critically for inspiration.
A more delegate inspired model of representative democracy with more accountability to their electorate, STV and proportional representation so that the government more closely aligns with the population, worker cooperatives and unions so that the population has a broader say in the economy. These are all things I believe we need and feel in line with the spirit of anarchism.
We do not have functional representative democracies. The material and economic reality of the current system leaves what little democratic practices we have vulnerable to manipulation. There is a power imbalance between our democratic systems of power and the purely economic power structures, resulting in the former being dominated by the latter.
What anarchists envision is not simply the removal of the current powerful institutions, but the replacement of them with alternative democratic institutions. For democracy to survive and function it must be the dominant power structure in a society.
I haven't seen the purge, but I know enough to know it's not a good model for human behavior.
Ask yourself, is the law the only thing stopping you from going on a murder-spree? Why would it be for anyone else.
What are you talking about? We've seen petty theft become decriminalized in certain cities and theft has skyrocketed. Just because most people wouldn't steal doesn't mean no one does.
You don't know anything.
You're comparing petty theft to murder
One of these crimes has a word in it that quite literally means insignificant in it, do you not see how they're nowhere near comparable?
I'm saying that people murder even when there are laws in place that criminalize it. You think LESS people will murder, not more, if it's decriminalized?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Most forms of anarchism are extremely pro-social and left-wing, unlike nearly every portrayal in media. The word anarchy itself simply means "without rulers". So, it's understandable that those with a vested interest in avoiding such conditions would want to portray it negatively.
One of the major foundational assumptions in nearly all forms of anarchism is that hierarchical power structures are fundamentally unjust, unnecessary, and exploitative. Additionally, an important common assumption is that must humans are cooperative and, given the opportunity, engage in mutual aid (I'd argue that this is well-documented in history). So, as an anarchist, I'd say that the that the removal of the established power structures would lead to a more fair world where everyone is enabled to pursue their interests and strengths, rather than being sabotaged by things outside of their control, like what family they are born into, or ground down by the orphan crushing machine that maintains societal stratification.
It demonstrates your political ignorance that you suggest some equivalence between Anarchy and the Purge; almost as if your conception of both is informed purely by Hollywood and pop culture.
Anarchy ≠ lawlessness. Anarchy in the most simple terms means 'without rulers' or 'without authority'. Anarchists propose a stateless society in which all people engage in voluntary free association. In practice attempting to create an Anarchist society means eliminating coercive forms of authority by single groups or individuals, and instead distributing power as equitably as possible.
HuR hUr AnArChY bAd!!!
Proceeds to lick boots
the purge takes place in a capitalist/fascist hellscape.
Anarchism is a complex web of horizontal structures, it isn't the absence of all structure.
Most anarchists envision communism
It wouldn’t work, not because of the purge, because bad actors will always jump on a power vacuum
load more comments
(2 replies)
That is the thrust behind, "Why does Christian god let's the evil happen ?"
This is the Epicurian Paradox, for those interested.
The Christian god is presented as all powerful, all knowing, and all good/benevolent. We see evil acts EVERYWHERE plain as day, but taking the Christian god at face value, it shouldn't even be possible for evil to exist:
- If a god knows everything and has unlimited power, then they have knowledge of all evil and have the power to put an end to it. But if they do not end it, they are not completely benevolent.
- If a god has unlimited power and is completely good, then they have the power to extinguish evil and want to extinguish it. But if they do not do it, their knowledge of evil is limited, so they are not all-knowing.
- If a god is all-knowing and totally good, then they know of all the evil that exists and wants to change it. But if they do not, it must be because they are not capable of changing it, so they are not omnipotent.
what they said
view more: next ›