moth main, no llms, all human

  • 22 Posts
  • 338 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 26th, 2025

help-circle

  • Besides funny rituals invloving deities, what is material in neoliberal capitalistic world is that there are various exclusive legal rights for partners over property, in labor forces, over child upbringing and in other fields. A select group of heterosexual partners who co-signed and keeps that deal with church/gvmnt gets a different treatment and some benefits no other party gets. It sounds petty and surreal to hold belief this custom should exist for that whole group but not +2% percents who are not heterosexual.

    Single people, single parents, partners not married are way larger groups that are to look into discussing the marriage privelege. There can be no logical reason into pushing LGBTQ+ folks out but, emh, being more occupied with their personal live than their own. And with how many legalized gay marriage are in her state, there’d probably more court clerk involved into reviewing her whining than there are actual married gays, portraying how relevant and/or significant her problem with them.

    For both law and market it isn’t reasonable to generate subcategories that small, as they seek the most optimized approach in classificating clients. While the state would instinctively want to calculate owned taxes as clear as possible, the market would feel ganked on for it doesn’t know what to do there, like, they need to invent new flavors of rings and decorations for incorrectly wed people? It is unreasonable to say the least, I bet they would still sell the same rings for hetero pairs and it would only lead into a spiral of moral-inspired lawsuits.

    I don’t feel that person can be involved in any discussion about gay people. I’m not a gay person myself but I have a gay friend so I get it naturally. Sorry for rambling, I was farming for my second diamond hoe while dictating it.


  • I don’t find democracy flawed by itself, but it is nothing but a cherished and fragile balance that gets watered down and coopted if not constantly maintained.

    Coexisting with other opinions is a work that doesn’t end once you get there, and natural foes of it like corporative lobbies, career politicians and now again pointless populists are always there to dismantle whatever was built. It being ‘a thing to fight for’ is reduced to a movie cliche, but it does, unlike feudal caste elite-guided medieval shit, require that effort at all times. Erosion of that understanding leads to what we can see today.

    Sharing culture and integration can start right now, and it spontaniously happens on it’s own if not put down, but the same rightwing people would likely draw another isolated Israel on the map than break the barriers from their own side, than accept other people as equals and discuss.
















  • I think that a lot of sudden changes could’ve got in the way of that theory, e.g. russian revolution in that case, that caused yesterday prols and low end nobles to get behind the wheel at random.

    Instead, I think the elites gravitate towards excessive and taboo modes of consumption due to growing unmoved by regular stuff. In Epstein case it could’ve worked as a ritual of initiation to some sort of a secret society too - hence the most popular process of the century gets stopped at every turn. But this way or another it’s nothing like a tradition carried over centuries, but more like a sort of degeneracy each generation comes to by itself - may it be for dibs on the wicked island, or for their own monstrocity.