27
I'm starting to empathize with Texas trying to leave the Union.
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
27 points (76.5% liked)
Casual Conversation
3308 readers
330 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Seceding is a problem on its face, because it functionally strips citizenship from dissenting residents.
The slavery fight was an extension of this problem, as emancipation grants an individual full citizenship.
What we ultimately need is a global citizenship that doesn't bottle any population cohort up in a single territory or deny civil rights based on place of birth. Secession functionally moves us away from universal human liberty.
What if the state you secede from also strips citizen rights from dissenting residents?
Then you're fucked coming and going, and what you need is an internationalist revolution.
(Disclaimer slavery bad, I think I haven't spend enough time saying that in this post)
On the topic of secession and global citizenship: As an anarchist I disagree that secession is inherently problematic. It all depends on how governance works in the state. Leaving could make a lot of sense with a monarchy for example.
I think a central authority regulating global citizenship could work out. But to me centralization means having one big point of failure. Less people to bribe to make sweeping changes. (Ergo Trump)
If there isnt a centralized authority then 'global citizenship' would mean different things in different states, so it wouldn't give everyone the same rights, and may not be followed at all. I can't imagine coordinating the whole world, but maybe I'm not optimistic enough.
Rejecting the authority of a monarch is very different than putting up hard borders along an arbitrary line of demarcation and reinforcing residency by birthright.
Secession, in this instance, affirms the rights of the monarch at a distance.
The legal concept of global citizenship does not require a single capital city. Just look at the EU. No one country rules all of Europe. No one politician dictates residency. You have a confederacy of democratic(ish) states operating under a single rule of law.
This is the principle of Constitutional governance. Power isn't embodied in an individual, it is a social contract between all residents.
We have a piecemeal arrangement via the old NATO alliance and the various international trade agreements. You can travel without visas between various states. You can conduct business without doing more than declaring what that business entails. You can change residency (temporarily) with minimal hassle to pursue work or education.
We have a number of frameworks already in effect. The OG neoliberal dream was to expand that system globally.
Obviously it didn't work. But more because neoliberalism valued trade over civil rights and private profit over public prosperity.
I'd say progress is progress, even if it isn't perfect. Large scale coordination is more difficult than smaller scale stuff.
I can see this, but it also relives the residents that succeeded. Gives them a safer place to build infrastructure.
Yeah that kinda stuff is my lack of optimism. If inegalitarian systems come together to decide on law for the world, then we may not get good laws.
I think there is a lot of local work to do before I am confident in a global order. If we had systems that represent us well, then combining them to set global standards would rock.
Inequality is on the rise globally, and has been for a few decades. So that social contract is being negotiated by parties on increasingly uneven ground. Therefore this statement is not calming to me. Lots of people agree to bad deals every day.
Edit: BTW thanks for sharing your views, I know I can sound kinda spicy at times when debating. We both obviously just want folks to have comfortable lives.
I would not call splitting the baby progress. Vietnam, for instance, wasn't liberated through division. It had to be reunited before either half was free from civil war. Same with Germany. Or Korea, for that matter.
But that's just my perspective