I'm neutral and you're reading into it.
If you find it offensive that I caught on about you actually not having the authority which you pretend to have on the subject, then the "hostility" is from your own non-acceptance of your ignorance, not me calling out your hypocrisy. If you don't pretend to be an expert falsely, people can't shame you for falsely pretending to be an expert, can they?
>But dude I don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan!
Then don't make statements like
>“carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywhere
Because it **DOES GET DISCUSSED**, you just "don't fucking care" to read the discussion.
Just to alleviate the "you're so mean" thing, the point here is very shortly that you can not have a society without some sort of a government. That probably sounds very authoritarian, because lots of people don't use these words in the same context as they're used in the philosophical discussion of politics. It's because *any* society that comprises of more than three members **will have** some sort of rules. And those rules will then be enforced in some way. And **that** is the question they try to answer in these **HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION** that isn't hidden anywhere and accessible to pretty much literally everyone in the world through the miracle of the internet, **which you claim doesn't exist.**
They do explore the alternatives. Pretty much **all** of them. You should just *start* with Hobbes because he sort of started the conversation because it was around the time belief in the "divine right of kings" was already faltering. And since you "don't fucking care about reading Leviathan", you might put on the "baby philosophy" or whatever you called it (seems you've cleaned up your answer a bit) from de Botton and quickly listen to the cliffnotes on what he thought about it from a guy — who is making pop-philosophy videos, yes, but — who also is a professional philosopher and is objectively communicating their ideas rather skilfully. As that will save you time on reading the centuries of books on the matter as you can get the cliffnotes or sort of "previously on:" so that you can get to the book that you're more interested in reading but which comments a lot on the earlier works which you may or may not have read.
Like 14 years ago or something I had just recently seen Slavoj Zizek, and I enjoyed his analysis (and honestly just his person.) So after watching some of his speeches and the The Pervert's Guide to Cinema and The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, I decided to pick up a book of his. It's genuinely the only book I've ever just given up on, as back then I was nearly as read and it made so many references to specific ideas of specific earlier philosophers, that I spent like a few days getting through just the first pages as I had to teach my self so much stuff backwardly before really understanding what Slavoj was trying to say. I also tried reading it without doing that and it was fine, you can keep up the context somewhat, but I noticed after a chapter or two that I had gotten something wrong on a fundamental level and had been getting some tiny idea wrong for a few pages and it had coloured my read of it and I had to do it all again.
So, because Hobbes is one of the fundamental thinkers on the subject, despite his own personal political views, he does make good and fundamental points about society. They're not too complex, so you honestly don't **need** to read the entire book. Fucking read a wiki-article what do I care. I'm just trying to point out that because you're trying to make spending a night in a drunk tank "as fascist" as marching people to a gas chamber, you don't seem to have a too nuanced understanding of the necessities of certain control measures in a society.
Google ["State of Nature"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature) to start with idk.
Like idk how you'd expect me to politely inform you of just how wrong you were in that statement because it would require me to author a succinct reply that would still convey hundreds of years of philosophical ponderings which you thought didn't even exist?
*edit* that wasn't exactly that "shortly". well, to me it was, but I gather other people perceive it differently sometimes
Dasus /
npub18c…2l3sd
2025-02-06 20:27:55
in reply to nevent1q…3vae
Author Public Key
npub18cg6peqe9yv3qd9v35u3mwt44kaz3dj8pddlcey2uq4v648j3vfsl2l3sdPublished at
2025-02-06 20:27:55Event JSON
{
"id": "1432eb27895ce58e103795630bbbb63dcf5dd80b001faabe8cae76113f0ae127",
"pubkey": "3e11a0e41929191034ac8d391db975adba28b6470b5bfc648ae02acd54f28b13",
"created_at": 1738873675,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ea8594ba336a99d30af1cd086fc08b7d27eeef8d7c026fc420a5d2c7c422ea69",
"",
"reply",
"34278b577783e8a2182eb1e0f4e94a24316d48570a4158610230fecdd49bd9ed"
],
[
"p",
"b7b63bd1ad8a915d652837df76a75e5bdac91497b8287bd33658de8a1d286da6"
],
[
"e",
"48171a6db0a9d9e3f2f67c5fef1dfa8dc707fbb990bbca74af7640497aed2cd9",
"",
"root",
"b7b63bd1ad8a915d652837df76a75e5bdac91497b8287bd33658de8a1d286da6"
],
[
"p",
"34278b577783e8a2182eb1e0f4e94a24316d48570a4158610230fecdd49bd9ed"
],
[
"p",
"3e11a0e41929191034ac8d391db975adba28b6470b5bfc648ae02acd54f28b13"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://lemmy.world/comment/14929941",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://lemmy.world/comment/14929941",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "I'm neutral and you're reading into it. \n\nIf you find it offensive that I caught on about you actually not having the authority which you pretend to have on the subject, then the \"hostility\" is from your own non-acceptance of your ignorance, not me calling out your hypocrisy. If you don't pretend to be an expert falsely, people can't shame you for falsely pretending to be an expert, can they? \n\n\u003eBut dude I don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan!\n\nThen don't make statements like \n\n\u003e“carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywhere \n\nBecause it **DOES GET DISCUSSED**, you just \"don't fucking care\" to read the discussion. \n\n\nJust to alleviate the \"you're so mean\" thing, the point here is very shortly that you can not have a society without some sort of a government. That probably sounds very authoritarian, because lots of people don't use these words in the same context as they're used in the philosophical discussion of politics. It's because *any* society that comprises of more than three members **will have** some sort of rules. And those rules will then be enforced in some way. And **that** is the question they try to answer in these **HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION** that isn't hidden anywhere and accessible to pretty much literally everyone in the world through the miracle of the internet, **which you claim doesn't exist.**\n\nThey do explore the alternatives. Pretty much **all** of them. You should just *start* with Hobbes because he sort of started the conversation because it was around the time belief in the \"divine right of kings\" was already faltering. And since you \"don't fucking care about reading Leviathan\", you might put on the \"baby philosophy\" or whatever you called it (seems you've cleaned up your answer a bit) from de Botton and quickly listen to the cliffnotes on what he thought about it from a guy — who is making pop-philosophy videos, yes, but — who also is a professional philosopher and is objectively communicating their ideas rather skilfully. As that will save you time on reading the centuries of books on the matter as you can get the cliffnotes or sort of \"previously on:\" so that you can get to the book that you're more interested in reading but which comments a lot on the earlier works which you may or may not have read.\n\nLike 14 years ago or something I had just recently seen Slavoj Zizek, and I enjoyed his analysis (and honestly just his person.) So after watching some of his speeches and the The Pervert's Guide to Cinema and The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, I decided to pick up a book of his. It's genuinely the only book I've ever just given up on, as back then I was nearly as read and it made so many references to specific ideas of specific earlier philosophers, that I spent like a few days getting through just the first pages as I had to teach my self so much stuff backwardly before really understanding what Slavoj was trying to say. I also tried reading it without doing that and it was fine, you can keep up the context somewhat, but I noticed after a chapter or two that I had gotten something wrong on a fundamental level and had been getting some tiny idea wrong for a few pages and it had coloured my read of it and I had to do it all again. \n\nSo, because Hobbes is one of the fundamental thinkers on the subject, despite his own personal political views, he does make good and fundamental points about society. They're not too complex, so you honestly don't **need** to read the entire book. Fucking read a wiki-article what do I care. I'm just trying to point out that because you're trying to make spending a night in a drunk tank \"as fascist\" as marching people to a gas chamber, you don't seem to have a too nuanced understanding of the necessities of certain control measures in a society. \n\nGoogle [\"State of Nature\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature) to start with idk. \n\nLike idk how you'd expect me to politely inform you of just how wrong you were in that statement because it would require me to author a succinct reply that would still convey hundreds of years of philosophical ponderings which you thought didn't even exist?\n\n*edit* that wasn't exactly that \"shortly\". well, to me it was, but I gather other people perceive it differently sometimes",
"sig": "6ee9755e191e73493f3650be306d6973670cc938c62039a4772598386c90c3b9003e6a69bda5be7b33afa1f3c68118c10a18579f88c3d16220b5a9113bd66e76"
}